Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:05:18AM -0700, David Morris wrote:
> Sounds like a good idea to me. I still professionally live in a dial-up
> world so less is better.
> Since I've not followed this topic from the beginning, I appologize if
> the following is a repeat ... but it seems to me that the early/original
> cookie specifcations allowed for a 4k cookie value? Folding multiple
> values into a single header might be an issue. Might want to note that
> if folding would cause the field length to be violated, then the
> mulitple headers shouldn't be folded?

Note that we're not speaking about a strict rule which could be violated,
just a hint about what size should have a high chance of passing without
complex verifications.

Many products will support more, but at least senders will know that if
they want to rely on more than 4kB they're among the rare people doing
so and that a validation of the whole chain would be a good idea before
thinking that everything will work out of the box. In short, this
recommendation should progressively motivate implementations to try to
send smaller headers, or at least not to waste too much space for no


Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 18:14:06 UTC