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

Re: Design: Rename FRAME_TOO_LARGE to FRAME_SIZE_ERROR

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:56:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbdxPWCrDvr_YSsFbUeNuuXmU_Td3E+uJVsTMoaXhFj8KQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
FRAME_SIZE_ERROR allows us to easily deal with both over and under sized
frames with no additional complexity or weirdness.
Overuse of PROTOCOL_ERROR will not be a good thing long term.
On Jun 19, 2013 7:44 AM, "David Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Patrick McManus wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:00 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/140
> > >
> > > Currently, we have the FRAME_TOO_LARGE error code...
> > >
> > > suggestion is to remove FRAME_TOO_LARGE entirely and just use
> > > PROTOCOL_ERROR
> > yes, let's do that! FRAME_TOO_LARGE's purpose was when the frame exceeded
> > client capacity - not for malformed packets. With the new smaller frame
> > sizes that bit of complexity can and should just go away.
>
> I think more information on error conditions is almost always better. The
> recipient should always beable to fold multiple codes into one if they
> insist.
>
> In any case, I haven't seen a discussion on the list, but at the interim
> meeting, the maximum was pushed up to HTTP while allowing the framing
> layer to retain the 64k limit implied by the field size. That seems to
> me to mean that the http layer could still need to send the TOO_LARGE
> error.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 14:56:51 UTC

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