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

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:57:16 +1000
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <54133339-3762-4A05-BA96-77021995FF2D@mnot.net>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>

On 10 Jul 2014, at 10:54 am, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> If there is a single limit on framesize, then it would end up being large because the receiving party is unlikely to know how large the headers should be, and must set it to as large as they ever believe headers might be.
> That negatively impacts reactivity.
> One could fix this by have separate headers vs data max frame size.
> Then we'd need to figure out which one mapped to SETTINGS and other control frames.
> Would it be a control-frame vs data-frame setting?

That's the direction that greg et al have proposed, and it seems to have good support.

> Bleh.

I need a better reason than "bleh" to justify the decision to the IESG...


Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 00:57:50 UTC

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