Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule

On 28 May 2014 10:53, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
> I'm even considering making the first jetty implementation respond with size
> errors if it ever sees a CONTINUATION frame.  Even if the incomplete HEADER
> frame is small, it represents a reservation of server resources that I don't
> know we want to commit to, as the following CONTINUATION frame may be
> delayed or may never come!  It would probably fail all interoperability
> tests, but work perfectly well in the wild.   That says something about
> wasted effort!

Jetty will interop fine with hyper if you take that approach. hyper
never emits a CONTINUATION frame under any circumstance, and never
will (16 kB of headers is an almost incomprehensibly large amount of
header data). I would not mourn the death of the CONTINUATION frame.

Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2014 10:16:04 UTC