W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Git Issues: PING

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 13:51:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYhpOtHhH8kwHN3aK4=tT4LLdP+p6fTQuogWB9abBAhURw@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
+jpinner who filed the issue

Unless anyone comes up with a motivating reason to add arbitrary payloads,
let's just disallow them. This is what the SPDY/2 spec originally did (
http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-protocol/spdy-protocol-draft2#TOC-PING):
"Length: This frame is always 4 bytes long."

Unless I missed a PING discussion elsewhere, it looks refactoring
accidentally introduced a semantic change. Let's fix that.


On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 12:37 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Per https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/68 ...
>
> The question is: "In the current draft, the PING frame requires the
> server to resend an arbitrarily large payload.... Perhaps restrict the
> length of the PING frame to 0, allow any stream identifier in the
> header require the server to echo the identifier? ... I'm not sure
> what benefit being able to echo arbitrary contents provides."
>
> Placing a cap on the size of the Ping payload makes sense. Whether
> that cap should be strictly mandated by the spec or established via
> SETTINGS is an open question, however. Perhaps the spec ought to place
> a strict upper limit and allow recipients to optionally specify a more
> restrictive value via SETTINGS?
>
> - James
>
>
Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 20:51:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC