- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:38:20 +1000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Just to be clear -- we're talking about the total size of the *entire* header block here, not a single header limit. Were the folks arguing for 4k assuming the former or the latter? On 25/06/2011, at 4:13 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > 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 > reason. > > Regards, > Willy > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 25 June 2011 02:38:50 UTC