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

Re: Frame Length Restrictions

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:35:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_ie7roNdAMq4_w8aE476HVPGf5_ZVoh_xJwkbmXEFxs0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>

The header length limit was meant to force implementations to implement and
test continuation frames and these become more likely with a 16K limit than
a 32K limit.

Personally I feel that this is unnecessary, and that the same could be
achieved with a comprehensive test suite rather than with a MUST in the
protocol, but that wasn't the consensus at the San Francisco interop
meeting.
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 17:35:58 UTC

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