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


From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:55:16 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNAf-Smyfvkp3DdBAedoR0WvUgKzepdtECyMLmmz_g2=WQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Oops, I sent this to James only.

Is it worth differentiating between too many and too few bytes?  Or is
the expectation that bad frames always means the peer is misbehaving,
so we're simply resetting the stream or telling them to go away?

On 19 June 2013 16:00, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/140
> Currently, we have the FRAME_TOO_LARGE error code...
> However, it's possible that a frame can be under-sized. For instance,
> a PING frame with less than 8-bytes of payload. We don't have a good
> symmetrical approach to handling both over, and undersized frames. One
> suggestion is to remove FRAME_TOO_LARGE entirely and just use
> PROTOCOL_ERROR but that loses value, I think. Having specific error
> codes is a good thing at times. Changing to FRAME_SIZE_ERROR allows us
> to deal easily with over and undersized frames symmetrically.

  Matthew Kerwin, B.Sc (CompSci) (Hons)
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 08:55:46 UTC

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