- From: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:03:52 +0000
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Yes, 8 bits should be sufficient. >From my stats, the longest header name I found is 32 character long (access-control-allow-credentials): this means 6 bits ! However, I would defer the exact decision to the definition of the header encoding format: 1 byte could be used to carry a 1 bit flag and the length of the header name. Hervé. > -----Original Message----- > From: Amos Jeffries [mailto:squid3@treenet.co.nz] > Sent: mardi 26 février 2013 05:32 > To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: #41: Header Block field name length > > On 26/02/2013 12:31 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Yeah, personally I'd agree that 32 bits is a bit much... > > http://http2.github.com/http2-spec/#HeaderBlock > > > > Say, 8 bits? > > > > (opening as <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/41>) > > +1 on 8 bits. > > smaller would seem to be better, but 8-bit alignment is reasonable. > > > > On 26/02/2013, at 10:26 AM, James M Snell wrote: > > > >> Sigh.. ok, how about the part about limiting header field name length > >> to <= 0xFF? > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >>> I'd be really, really wary of this. They may not be standard or common, > but I've seen many headers that exercise the stranger characters available, > and having them break in HTTP/2 would not be good. > > Examples? and are the custom ones or > > Can the definition be narrowed down in the HTTPbis drafts to remove some > of the characters not even being used by these exceptional cases? > > Amos
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 09:05:48 UTC