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

Re: Frame Length Restrictions

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:05:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW8K1C4pStOe90Nt=DWTD4g7DGiMBBCG2LwOX9-LMwODg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 16 April 2014 17:34, 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.

The natural follow-on question is: if we allow 64K frames, why not let
a header block fill the entire thing?  It's not like the smaller frame
size has a flow control advantage.  The only advantage is in ensuring
that padding space is available.  But limiting the length to 32K would
work adequately for that too.
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 17:05:52 UTC

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