W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 18:39:30 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NGBg0VDoUaeXJuAGGLiHx00s4NEj0Be2GEoPS5igKtiZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7 July 2014 18:27, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Hi Greg (et al),
>
> Thanks for the proposal. The most immediate concern I have here is how
> SETTINGS is used; see my recent e-mail to Jason.
>
>
Mark,

In reference to your comment:

> SETTINGS is explicitly not a negotiation mechanism; it only allows one
end to advertise its configuration to its peer.
>
> In this case, the semantic of MHS (MAX_HEADER_SIZE) would be roughly "I
allow headers
> coming at me to be at most THIS BIG." There's no way for the peer to ask
for more; it has to
> accept the limitation.

Correct!  This is not intended to be a negotiation, it is simply intended
to make explicit the current HTTP semantics that allows a server to reject
large entities.    It is not an invitation to haggle with an endpoint, the
endpoint is simply saying - don't even think about sending me a header
larger than this setting.

Endpoint already have limitation, which can only be discovered by
attempting to send a header block, only to receive a 413.  This proposal
puts the burden on the sender rather than the receiver to enforce such
limitations.

cheers






-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 08:39:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC