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

Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 13:58:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVvhxw_h1QEM3U=pRwKFdZ5GudEiz+UwNf99M5vjMvVLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7 May 2013 12:41, 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.

That discussion never really concluded.

What we have is MUST support 8192, but no upper limit (other than the
hard 65535 byte limit imposed by the frame length field size).

You might infer from this that 8192 is the only safe upper limit,
especially for frames containing headers.  Other frames might trigger
RST_STREAM, but at least you don't lose the session.
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 20:59:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC