- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 13:18:46 -0700
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNed0Mw9W10-dd3HeJGLadawvSVo791Hg5SnkDjcOdOZUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Works for me. On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > > > Option (b) certainly isn't perfect but it works. Since our frame size > field is expressed as an unsigned 16-bit integer, we already have a > fixed maximum size (2^16-1 + 8) which ought to be the default > MAX_FRAME_SIZE. If an implementation needs it to be smaller, they can > specify so using the SETTINGS. > > >> c. We add a headers block to the RST_FRAME and GOAWAY frames ;-) .. > > > > I'm not following you. > > > > I was being silly.. never mind ;-) > > >> 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. ;) > > Ok, coin toss says the 8-byte header is not included. That work for > everyone? > > - James > >
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 20:19:13 UTC