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

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

From: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 15:59:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKC-DJjsSHr+WRQ1r7etoYOBW63vLpCOUY9SvcqnkSNB30FuZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1 to expanding to 24 bits with a setting (while 16k may be good based on
current data, experience has shown that these sorts of things change
dramatically over a decade or two).

Where does the 256 octet minimum come from?  That seems like an arbitrary
value.  Is it too low?   The minimum values have ended up mattering in
other protocols  (the IPv4 minimum bleeding over into impacting DNS, etc)
so we should be careful not to set it too low.

     Erik



On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:46 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 13 July 2014 20:00:01 UTC

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