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

Options for CONTINUATION-related issues

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 17:08:49 +1000
Message-Id: <6BCB1A73-19BD-40EB-8B69-3E22DD327F0C@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Assuming that we can separate the removal of the reference set from HPACK from how we deal with CONTINUATION altogether (which may be optimistic, but let's try), I currently see two realistic options for (largely) resolving #550 and #551 -

a) Remove CONTINUATION from the specification and add a new setting that dictates the maximum HEADERS/PUSH_PROMISE frame size (as distinct from max_frame_size) a peer is willing to receive. I.e., the setting refers to the compressed header size.

b) Keep CONTINUATION in the specification, and add a new setting that advises the maximum header set size (i.e,. uncompressed) a peer is willing to receive (but might not imply PROTOCOL_ERROR or STREAM_ERROR on receipt).

There are a lot of details to discuss here, default values, possible tweaks, etc. but ignore that for the time being. Looking through the wiki and watching the discussion, I think these are the two frontrunners.

Are there any other realistic (i.e., capable of achieving consensus, NOT just your favourite approach) options that we should be considering?

Thanks,

P.S. This is NOT an invitation to debate merits or express preferences; we'll get there soon enough.


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 07:09:15 UTC

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