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

Re: #41: Header Block field name length

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:48:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdV-DefDScYgH5r5Km1Qw7Uo_ATkhLaRZufycgDn4ppAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I think this section will be changing with the compression scheme anyway,
and it probably isn't worth making changes to this right now.
-=R


On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:03 AM, RUELLAN Herve
<Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>wrote:

> Yes, 8 bits should be sufficient.
>
> >From my stats, the longest header name I found is 32 character long
> (access-control-allow-credentials): this means 6 bits !
>
> However, I would defer the exact decision to the definition of the header
> encoding format: 1 byte could be used to carry a 1 bit flag and the length
> of the header name.
>
> Hervé.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Amos Jeffries [mailto:squid3@treenet.co.nz]
> > Sent: mardi 26 février 2013 05:32
> > To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: #41: Header Block field name length
> >
> > On 26/02/2013 12:31 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > > Yeah, personally I'd agree that 32 bits is a bit much...
> > >     http://http2.github.com/http2-spec/#HeaderBlock
> > >
> > > Say, 8 bits?
> > >
> > > (opening as <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/41>)
> >
> > +1 on 8 bits.
> >
> > smaller would seem to be better, but 8-bit alignment is reasonable.
> >
> >
> > > On 26/02/2013, at 10:26 AM, James M Snell wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sigh.. ok, how about the part about limiting header field name length
> > >> to <= 0xFF?
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > >>> I'd be really, really wary of this. They may not be standard or
> common,
> > but I've seen many headers that exercise the stranger characters
> available,
> > and having them break in HTTP/2 would not be good.
> >
> > Examples? and are the custom ones or
> >
> > Can the definition be narrowed down in the HTTPbis drafts to remove some
> > of the characters not even being used by these exceptional cases?
> >
> > Amos
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 20:49:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 February 2013 20:49:12 GMT