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: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:58:10 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NHCStS5-TQV_kC3Y6S66kVFUH9bKh0vgakkFHw9Qyr2tw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 8 July 2014 09:06, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lets make it concrete.
> Client A,is speaking to a proxy B, to servers C, D.
> Server C wants a max header limit of 4k.
> Server D wants a max header limit of 8k.
>
> What does proxy B do?
>

Again this is a strawman.   This problem exists today for http/1 and h2-13.
Having a declared limit in no way changes the fact that there are limits.

Proxy B can do whatever it likes. It can have a 4K limit and all is fine.
It can have an 8k limit and then  when it receives a >4K <8KB header that
is destined for Server C, it responds with 413.  Or it forwards it anyway
and server C 413s or go-away - just as it does today.

The proposal only makes this problem more explicit. It does not make it
worse, but it may make it easier to see and avoid in the first place.

regards








-- 
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 23:58:39 UTC

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