- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 17:06:03 +1000
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 25/06/2011, at 4:58 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <196C8694-5F50-42E8-8194-493093FD388E@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri > tes: > >> 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? > > I do not think we can set any numerical value for this property > which will satisfy everybody, but 4k is a sensible compromise between > seriously memory-starved gadgets (your future electricity meter) > and a reasonable level of cookie state, which surprisingly many of > these gadgets use. Considering that there isn't any floor at the moment, I'm optimistic. > Would this be too evil ? > > If the underlying transport protocol advertises or negotiates > a receive buffer size, such as the TCP window, Clients > SHOULD NOT send HTTP requests larger than this size. > > This would allow really tiny implementations, such as Contiki, to > inform the world about their limits. That ignores proxies; the window size is effectively hop-by-hop (from an HTTP standpoint), and anyway this will cause people to complain about layer violations. > A server is still free to set a huge window to speed up POST, without > committing to accepting 2MB requests. > > In most sensible socket implementations, socketoptions are inherited > from your accept socket to the accepted sockets, so a single setsockopt > can configure this on the server side. > > I realize that not all socket implementations allow you to inspect > this number with getsockopt, but maybe this can inspire some kernel > network coders to provide that. > > Also, I assume it is obvious to everybody, that the header size we > are talking about includes the two CRNL sequences at the end ? We'll need to go to that level of detail when we write the text, yes. It seems reasonable to include it. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 25 June 2011 07:06:43 UTC