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

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:15:34 +0000
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
cc: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <27231.1405109734@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAP+FsNdoESu1GyRwyU5GCQGXFxXaHNfi92d13K86gHxxwFYEJg@mail.gmail.com>
, Roberto Peon writes:

>As I mentioned before, IIRC we've seen response headers as large as 12mb,
>at which point we said: OK, lets have a 2G limit (effectively infinite),
>because clearly we can't predict this.

So there are two questions we need to ask ourselves:

1. Should the protocol support this case ?

2. By default or by configuration ?

3. Who should suffer most ?

My answers are:  Yes, configuration and sender.

Yes, because it is stupid to make a protocol with arbitrary limitations.

Configuration because we should not force all HTTP/2.0 implementations
to over-reserve memory on the off-chance that they ever see one of
these requests.

Sender, because in particular in a case like this, it is important to
give the receiver advance notice that exceptional memory management
will be required.


-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 20:15:57 UTC

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