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

Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:03:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_gFrAow2==sZx8_57Hw81d24V4HaqJCEc63WhZSAoWdBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1 To consistent handling of frames, whatever the rules are.


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote:

> I believe the bytes are completely inconsequential.
>
> My goal with this was to make it so there is only one set of rules for
> SETTINGS frames.  Currently, there is the "oh this is the first settings
> frame rules".
>
> This is not going to have impact on performance, but removing edge cases
> is desirable to me.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> This pull request proposes to make two settings mandatory in every
>> SETTINGS frame: SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS and
>> SETTINGS_INITIAL_WINDOW_SIZE.
>>
>> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/150
>>
>> Gabriel's proposal for an HTTP/1.1 header for carrying settings in the
>> Upgrade made these mandatory only at that point, which didn't cover
>> the TLS handshake, or just starting from prior knowledge.
>>
>> Two questions:
>>  - Do we want to make any settings mandatory, or are defaults acceptable?
>>  - Is this the right trade-off? Or are the 16 bytes on subsequent
>> SETTINGS frames completely intolerable.
>>
>> Note that if we make these settings mandatory, there might be other
>> settings in the future that will also be mandatory; e.g., the
>> compression context size.
>>
>>
>
Received on Saturday, 29 June 2013 19:03:58 UTC

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