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

Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule

From: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 07:54:28 +0800
Cc: "Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo)" <rwheeldo@cisco.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7DCC75CE-7E7D-4B06-8DA7-F8D412DB9E8B@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>

On 2014–05–29, at 1:23 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 28 May 2014 08:51, Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo) <rwheeldo@cisco.com> wrote:
>> The following are based off yesterday's CWS traffic. ~ 6BN requests of which only 123 fall into the > 64K category. So, yes they exist but they're a tiny edge case.
>> Header sizes in each case are rounded down to the nearest KB.
> 
> Awesome, thanks!  If we are interested in discussing who to throw off
> the bus, 64K seems like good break point to discuss.  Though that
> doesn't avoid the need for continuations entirely.  

It does if the max frame size goes back up to 64K. It was only reduced to artificially make continuations more likely, right?

As for common-case head of queue blocking, DATA frame payloads can still be limited to 16K if we like. Such a limit disparity also solves the padding granularity problem.

Again I’ll suggest that nobody gets “thrown off the bus” if the canonical translation to and from HTTP/1.1 uses an initial sequence of header blocks, with routing information going into the first block.
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2014 23:55:03 UTC

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