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

Re: Frame Length Restrictions

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 23:40:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNd4h30OJw9JEFEGx633iTtGTqw8+Rm6D3B9CrA4meABcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
No-brainer, yes.
-=R


On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
>
> We need to show strong consensus on-list to overturn that, despite being a
> coin toss. If we want to get this into the next implementation draft, it
> needs to be demonstrated in the next ~2 days.
>
> I.e., if there's a number of folks who feel this is a no-brainer, great;
> otherwise, probably not.
>
> Who supports this, and does anyone have a problem with doing it?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> On 17 Apr 2014, at 10:34 am, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
>
> > I put together a pull request to replace the frame length restriction
> with an HTTP application layer restriction that I would like the working
> group to consider.
> >
> > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/456
> >
> > Of particular note is that this is in contrast to a previous decision
> made by the working group (albeit by coin toss in Seattle) which can be
> found
> >
> > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/260
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > - Jeff
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 19 April 2014 06:40:51 UTC

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