- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:24:33 +1000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 22/06/2011, at 5:03 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 06:35:21AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <FEEB46BC-14A2-4131-9309-584EA8813358@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri >> tes: >> >>> Again -- this is NOT recommending how large people should make cookies, >>> but recommending a floor for implementations to support, to improve >>> interop. >> >> I agree, but the floor should not be set punishingly high to cater >> for clueless people. >> >> Standards should promote interoperability, not stupid behaviour. > > Indeed. My observations in field is that clueless people justify their > stupid designs by "but look, it's permitted". Till now I've only been > able to show them they were doing stupid things by giving examples of > various implementations' limits, for instance by reminding them that > the ubiquitous Apache server had a 8kB limit per header and that that > should ring a bell in the guy's head. > > Also Mark, I agree the Alteon would be faulty for 1.5kB right now, but > it was 10 years ago (WebOS 8). With WebOS 10 one year later, they > increased the limit to 4.5kB. But seeing that people were already able > to send about 2kB of cookies 10 years ago when DSL was still rare, we > surely can imagine what they'll do today if the standard suggests that > everything in the path should be able to support at least 20kB. Understood. I'd also like to not have to revise HTTP again in another ten years :) I think 20k made sense to me because of my experiences deploying proxies; however I agree we shouldn't be encouraging large headers. Anyone else with opinions? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 09:25:00 UTC