Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items

Roberto, not quite sure I'm following what you're saying. The answer
to what exactly shouldn't be in question?

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> since a frame != the payload of a frame, I think the answer shouldn't be in
> question.
> A frame includes the framing and overhead bytes, and (regardless of how it
> may have been done in the past) the frame-size field either corresponds to
> this entity, or needs to be renamed.
> -=R
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 7 May 2013 08:19, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 1. There is an existing ed note in the draft indicating that we
>> > currently do not have any way of specifying the maximum frame size.
>> > There are several possibilities:
>> >
>> >   a. We decide we don't need to report a maximum frame size.
>>
>> This has been discussed.  The problem is that you have to then FIX the
>> maximum frame size and require that all implementations support that
>> size.  No one can decide on a goldilocks number: 4096, 8192, 16384,
>> 32768 or 65536 have all been variously proposed.  Others want to add
>> extra bits to the length field to open up other options (i.e.,
>> petabytes).
>>
>> >   b. We introduce a MAX_FRAME_SIZE setting for the SETTINGS frame.
>>
>> This introduces another "known state" issue (see Gabriel's issues).
>> You have to have a default (see above), and then a robust way to
>> change.
>>
>> >   c. We add a headers block to the RST_FRAME and GOAWAY frames ;-) ..
>>
>> I'm not following you.
>>
>> >   I think I prefer option (a) but (b) works too.
>> >
>> > 2. In the current draft we say that all implementations MUST be
>> > capable of supporting frames up to 8192 octets in length. We don't
>> > say, however, whether that size includes the 8-byte header or is that
>> > just payload octets?
>>
>> That's a simple fix.  Toss a coin.  ;)
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 19:02:46 UTC