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

Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 23:46:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcTGoLNxzQkdfjjSm4qR2D22oKCm8yrFRkU8Piv6AM=kQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In this case it's not arbitrary at all, that's what's currently
written in the spec. At this point I'm just putting a stake in the
ground, there's plenty of time to fine tune it.

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> In message <CABP7Rbe+N+JEesvsV4EeQnc-7YSyiUmp2_46cD7znAA9OcNTZQ@mail.gmail.com>
> , James M Snell writes:
>
>>Proposal: Let's define that 8192+8 is the default MAX_FRAME size.
>
> 8192 is a pretty arbitrary choice, wouldn't it make sense to do a
> bit of math on typical MTU's and TCP/IP header sizes and see if
> any numbers work out more optimal ?
>
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 06:46:55 UTC

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