W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:41:06 -0300
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYgwggq4FNweDCEfbsp-fN3yJ8p35jx=fK8Xc5adk+fUVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I need to re-read the framing continuation thread (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JanMar/0600.html), but
I thought all this was addressed by that (8192 max frames, with frame
continuation bit). I see that the spec does not mention frame
continuations, so maybe we just have to write the text, or perhaps the
thread reached a different conclusion than I remember.


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:19 PM, 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.
>   b. We introduce a MAX_FRAME_SIZE setting for the SETTINGS frame.
>   c. We add a headers block to the RST_FRAME and GOAWAY frames ;-) ..
>
>   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?
>
> - James
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 19:41:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:11 UTC