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

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

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:32:25 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NHQWUEvFGUqGUq7tX5Hc+VaGVrt1WXdy0KObzmVhi_8-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm good with this and think it is a good step to clear the decks.

With regards to 4 byte alignment, I'm not that concerned eitherway.
However if there are those that are really concerned about alignment, then
I think the best solution would be to move the padding length to the header
and require (or suggest?) that all frames are padding to a 4 byte boundary
(but make that a separate proposal if you want it).


On 12 July 2014 16:46, 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/

Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 00:32:54 UTC

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