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

Re: CONTINUATION Frame Size

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:32:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWK2YSRq+GoaCyCWCzRuXFTX8uiXyB-W93PgozOKaJOdQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13 August 2013 00:11, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the END_HEADERS flag is not
> set, we ought to allow frame sizes up to the maximum allowed (65,535)
> to eliminate this additional overhead.

Interesting observation.  Would you make the same allowance for
HEADERS and PUSH_PROMISE too?  Those are actually more likely to need
this.

That said, I'm not certain that I want this, it seems like an another
set of if() statements that could be avoided.  After all, we
determined that the framing overhead was tolerable.  And it's not like
we want to *encourage* the use of big headers.
Received on Monday, 12 August 2013 23:32:28 UTC

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