Re: [hybi] Framing take IV

[Maciej Stachowiak <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 3, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On 4 August 2010 10:53, Ian Hickson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> >
> > I think that we have reasonable consensus on something like:
> >
> >   +--------------------------------------------------+
> >   | frag(1) |unused(3) | opcode(4) |  Length(16)     |
> >   +--------------------------------------------------+
> >   |                      Data                        |
> >   +--------------------------------------------------+
> 
> Why would we have a fixed length field with fragmentation rather than a
> variable length field?
> 
> If we can have a variable width length field, do we need to support
> fragmentation in the first version? I could see an argument for supporting
> fragmentation in the case of multiplexing, but without that it doesn't
> seem to actually gain us anything.
> 
> 
> Ian,
> 
> at the f2f there was a very loud hum for a single framing mechanism. Following that, there were loud hums for fragmentation and fixed length frames, even without consideration of multiplexing.
> 
> I believe the feeling was that fragmentation makes sending and receiving big messages simpler.  It also prepares the ground for multiplexing extensions. There was very little support for variable length lengths, as that was just seen as more complex than fragmentation.
> 
> But if you have a counter proposal that meets the single framing hum, then please post it.

Hum volume is not an adequate response to a reasoned argument. If people think fragmentation is simpler than a variable size length field, they should explain why, rather than just citing the number of people who agree.

Regards,
Maciej