W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Frame Length Restrictions

From: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:50:41 +0800
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <73FBB995-1C0F-4B02-9DF2-7DD4B66E063C@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>

On 2014–04–17, at 8:34 AM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> With the addition of padding to the framing layer, I believe it is preferable to implement the frame length requirement at the HTTP layer to allow intermediaries to pad frames without running into frame length restrictions.

Is there a particular reason to add back both bits as opposed to just one? A 64K frame with 16K of information is quite a lot of padding.

Also, an intermediary can already maximize available padding with a policy of preferring to send empty padding frames. There’s no limit on the ratio of incoming padding to data, so an intermediary which simply preserves incoming padding must already be prepared to send anything.

In any case, it sounds like you’re solving a specific problem which maybe should be mentioned in the RFC. Other than that though, I have no real objection… it’s a coin-toss issue.
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 01:51:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC