W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:26:41 +1000
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Message-Id: <01B48522-959D-458D-9DA3-D95B2F96264A@mnot.net>
To: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Haven't heard much. If we s/20k/4k/ in the header section, any other comments / suggestions / concerns?

On 22/06/2011, at 7:24 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> On 22/06/2011, at 5:03 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 06:35:21AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>> In message <FEEB46BC-14A2-4131-9309-584EA8813358@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
>>> tes:
>>>> Again -- this is NOT recommending how large people should make cookies, 
>>>> but recommending a floor for implementations to support, to improve 
>>>> interop.
>>> I agree, but the floor should not be set punishingly high to cater
>>> for clueless people.
>>> Standards should promote interoperability, not stupid behaviour.
>> Indeed. My observations in field is that clueless people justify their
>> stupid designs by "but look, it's permitted". Till now I've only been
>> able to show them they were doing stupid things by giving examples of
>> various implementations' limits, for instance by reminding them that
>> the ubiquitous Apache server had a 8kB limit per header and that that
>> should ring a bell in the guy's head.
>> Also Mark, I agree the Alteon would be faulty for 1.5kB right now, but
>> it was 10 years ago (WebOS 8). With WebOS 10 one year later, they
>> increased the limit to 4.5kB. But seeing that people were already able
>> to send about 2kB of cookies 10 years ago when DSL was still rare, we
>> surely can imagine what they'll do today if the standard suggests that
>> everything in the path should be able to support at least 20kB.
> Understood. I'd also like to not have to revise HTTP again in another ten years :)
> I think 20k made sense to me because of my experiences deploying proxies; however I agree we shouldn't be encouraging large headers. 
> Anyone else with opinions?
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 07:27:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:52 UTC