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: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:38:55 +0000
To: K.Morgan@iaea.org
cc: ynir.ietf@gmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <52038.1405370335@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <943AECCF-EE19-4A78-9C39-8C37073F8B53@iaea.org>, K.Morgan@iaea.org writes:

>> There can only ever be an issue with the first request, which is
>> typically sent before the peers SETTINGS arrive.
>Ok, now I understand. You're advocating for MAX_FRAME_SIZE to be a hard limit
>regardless of the default value.

What I'm advocating is that 

A) you can *always* get a 256 byte frame through.


B) that all software SHOULD be configurable to allow 16KB frames.

No more, no less.

>As I mentioned before, if I understood Jeff correctly, he didn't like this 
>approach because he couldn't just always use a fixed 16K frame size.

And as I analysed in my previous email:  In all the cases where
Jeff has an opportunity to do that, there is almost certainty that
it will always work.

The one case I can see where it might fail, is if Jeff tries to access an
"intelligent lightbulb" at edison.example.com, after example.com's main
websever stuffed his browser with 14 kB of cookies.

That's a corner-case I can live with.

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 Monday, 14 July 2014 20:39:18 UTC

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