Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items

Er, I meant 8192 octet max frames.

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:41 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> I need to re-read the framing continuation thread (
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JanMar/0600.html),
> but I thought all this was addressed by that (8192 max frames, with frame
> continuation bit). I see that the spec does not mention frame
> continuations, so maybe we just have to write the text, or perhaps the
> thread reached a different conclusion than I remember.
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:19 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. There is an existing ed note in the draft indicating that we
>> currently do not have any way of specifying the maximum frame size.
>> There are several possibilities:
>>
>>   a. We decide we don't need to report a maximum frame size.
>>   b. We introduce a MAX_FRAME_SIZE setting for the SETTINGS frame.
>>   c. We add a headers block to the RST_FRAME and GOAWAY frames ;-) ..
>>
>>   I think I prefer option (a) but (b) works too.
>>
>> 2. In the current draft we say that all implementations MUST be
>> capable of supporting frames up to 8192 octets in length. We don't
>> say, however, whether that size includes the 8-byte header or is that
>> just payload octets?
>>
>> - James
>>
>>
>