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

Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 11:52:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NGQbkVm3J=-J6XHFzH99--b1tORSj5imE7LAWafOLvbEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 29 May 2014 06:52, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:

> Personally I am in favour of 64K limit on headers

That is an enormous increase in the resource commitment required by servers
- per stream!. It is at least 8x the defacto standard an that is not
counting compression.

Roberto says that the same 16k  size limit has been applied to everything -
which is not a bad idea.  So why exclude the poor servers from this?
Server must hold onto the all the headers to make them available throughout
the request processing, so allowing 64KB of compressed headers,  which
could easily turn into close to much more than that, is a big commitment.

The meta data channel required for transport of HTTP semantics is much
smaller than that.  8KB does almost all cases - specially on the request
side of things.

Sure future protocols are probably going to want more and more meta data -
but why do we have to make the transport meta data channel available for
such future protocols.  Let them open their own high priority stream, or
send additional header sets within the data stream.   Let's not open the
flood gates on the transport meta data channel, complete with the special
exclusions from flow control and segmentation just to make it even more
attractive to use!


Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 09:53:10 UTC

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