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

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

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 21:31:19 +0000
To: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <36993.1405287079@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAKC-DJjsSHr+WRQ1r7etoYOBW63vLpCOUY9SvcqnkSNB30FuZw@mail.gmail.com>, Erik Nygren writ

>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.

It's my back-of-the-envelope calculation for minimum interop.

256 bytes is enough to do "GET /" and get a redirect back, and to
"GET /robots.txt" and get a "deny all" back.

There are plenty of non-browser web-apps which can function in 256 bytes
and therefore there is no reason for us to insist the accept larger frames.

(I'd appreciate somebody else confirm my estimate)

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 Sunday, 13 July 2014 21:31:42 UTC

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