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

Re: HEADERS and flow control

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 10:08:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUbAm+rSn0RYBRr3oOUd3YE=Gww4Cyjq2etaR2rqFa71w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 28 May 2014 09:35, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
> If the resource constrained server does not have the resources to accept the
> 250B extra header, it can RST_STREAM, but it still has to process the
> headers, because of the shared state table.   So if the server really is
> resource constrained, and wants to limit the resources of each connection,
> then it wont just RST_STREAM, it will GO_AWAY the whole connection - and all
> the work in progress on all the other streams will be lost!

Yes, if you can't tolerate the work that updating the header table
requires, then I suspect that you might find you are best dropping

I don't see any intrinsic problem with this.  We've delegated the
state commitment management to the HTTP layer: the 431 status code,
specifically.  That makes more sense to me, since header processing is
a function of that layer.  RST_STREAM remains as a secondary option.
GOAWAY as a measure of last resort.
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2014 17:09:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC