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

Re: Frame Length Restrictions

From: Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:25:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHzwyDv_wKV5vqL2wk-sjqPjiXz=GNGS-Qkk15HkDCG2WykXQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm fine with this.

-A

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 Sunday, 20 April 2014 16:26:20 UTC

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