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

Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:06:07 -0400
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <DBB6CE44-6670-424D-97F4-3A0AF465B3FA@mnot.net>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Hi Greg,

Sorry for the delay; was in the air.

On 19 Jul 2014, at 2:11 am, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

> How do we transport large headers?:
> a) Large Frames
> b) Continuations
> c) Fragmented Headers frame
> 
> How do we limit the max header size?
> x) Expressed as a max compressed size (perhaps == a max frame size)
> y) Expressed as a max uncompressed size
> z) No declared limit (but receivers may apply a limit with 431 or GO-AWAY)
> 
> I think any of the limits can be applied to any of the transports.
> 
> Mark - is it too late to re frame the consensus questions?  Have you been able to see any clarity in the other thread?

If you look at how I formulated the question, it was mostly about a/b (c still looks like it doesn’t have broad support), with a bit of wiggle room on x/y/z (and I do think we can answer a/b/c and then tackle x/y/z).

More soon,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 20 July 2014 15:06:32 UTC

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