Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule

On 29/05/2014 11:54 a.m., David Krauss wrote:
> 
> On 2014–05–29, at 1:23 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> 
>> On 28 May 2014 08:51, Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo) 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?

Both goals can be achieved by:

* explicitly limiting CONTINUATION to 3 consecutive frames, and

* allowing other streams frames other than HEADERS, PUSH_PROMISE,
CONTINUATION to be delivered between HEADERS and CONTINUATION.


Personally I am in favour of 64K limit on headers. However, the
Cookie/Set-Cookie size problem is a hard nut to crack.

Also might I remind that Squid already has a few complaints about our
32KB default limit and people patching the code to handle >64KB
individual header length for auth tokens in NTLM/Negotiate logins when
(long) lists of groups and SID are encoded inside them.

Amos

Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 04:53:25 UTC