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

Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule

From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 11:15:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH_hAJHrVA0n3A2bsixw2_Q1jQ3aGrdNOVRo2L2K8tuHMdzd-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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

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