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

Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 11:37:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_jHpoS3KKduML9JRz8+bt9kejq9Qco3zipsN1TjZKZE=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
what's the purpose of reserving the bits.

If you have a setting you must use to advertise the ability to receive
more than 16k the extra reserved bits are pointless. At this point
just use a 31-bit length field.

On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Jul 12, 2014, at 1:46 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
>> There has been a lot of discussion over the last two weeks about various proposals to address a number of issues. While we're not at the point where we have consensus to accept any of them wholesale, I do think we can reduce the surface area of the discussion by declaring consensus on the less controversial parts.
>>
>> So: it appears that we have consensus to address issue #553 by:
>>
>> * Expanding the frame size field to 24 bits
>> * Reserving additional bits to align
>> * Adding a setting advertising the maximum frame size allowed by the recipient, with a default of 16K octets and a minimum of 256 octets
>>
>> This would address (only) <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/553>.
>>
>> Does anyone have a problem with that, or further comments?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jason T. Greene
> WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>
>
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2014 18:38:16 UTC

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