Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)

On 3 June 2014 14:13, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
> Yes there are current examples of some fields approaching 64KB (thanks
> Mike), but their existence is not an argument to make the transport meta
> channel unlimited.

Actually, it is.  We've been chartered to produce a protocol that
provides "... a new expression of HTTP's current semantics ..."  I
understand that's it's a bit of weak-sauce to use appeal from
authority, but I'd interpret any attempt to constrain size as a change
to the protocol semantics.

Now the ideas you have described make different trade-offs between
implementation costs, protocol complexity, and the various
externalities that they cause.  If you do manage to find a
less-objectionable way of reaching a solution to the same problem, I
encourage you to work through your proposal in more detail.  There are
fairly far-reaching ramifications of any change of this sort and we
need to view this a little more holistically if we are even going to
consider changes.

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 21:48:18 UTC