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

Re: adding Header Continuation

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 10:02:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVAFbDZAV1NR71in6qOxgN2cmeUdjYfmQYagCGW4Z6kMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 19 May 2013 20:29, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> Without going into the fine details of the text, are we ready to have such a thing?

Yes.  But.

I think that we need to be a little clearer on what happens when size
limits are exceeded.

grmocg wrote:
> If I recall correctly, there currently isn't an explicit limit on header size in HTTP. Unless we're willing to impose such, it is up to the implementation to reject things which are too large by RESETTING the stream. That case probably does need more expounding, though.

Resetting a stream isn't going to be possible, unless the receiver
first applies any changes to local compression state.  I remain
concerned that the header compression scheme will need to deal with
the same issue.

I'd like to see a discussion resolve on what strategy(ies) we want to
permit for dealing with bad peers for oversized stuff, for this and
perhaps also frames in general.  A generally applicable strategy seems
plausible.  In that discussion we should cover whether we permit the
declaration of size limits.

--Martin
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 17:03:20 UTC

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