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: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:07:39 +1000
Cc: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <535356E7-9E2E-438C-87FD-3B24070B3872@mnot.net>
To: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>

On 26/06/2011, at 11:37 PM, Brian Pane wrote:
> In the case of HTTP requests arriving via SPDY, short-circuiting the
> 413 response will be a little more complicated: in order to keep the
> server's session-scoped gzip state from falling out of sync with the
> client, the server will have to either: 1) send the entirety of the
> request headers through its gzip engine before discarding them or 2)
> drop the entire session, rather than just the affected stream, when it
> sends the 413, and thus drop any other requests that might have been
> in line behind the too-large request.  I don't see any good way to
> solve this in the HTTP spec, though; it's really an inherent tradeoff
> between efficiency (session-scoped compression state) and resiliency
> (request/stream-scoped compression state) at a lower layer.

Yep. We're aiming to make it possible for something like SPDY to overtake what p1 does without worrying about the other parts, but it'll still need to address the issues brought up in p1.


Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 05:08:05 UTC

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