- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:49:44 +1000
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 18 Jun 2014, at 8:29 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > I'm starting to really hate the entire HEADER+CONTINUATION kludge > upon kludge upon kludge hackery. > > My preference would be to impose sanity by simply removing CONTINUATION > and telling cookie monsters that if their HPACK compressed HTTP > headers do not fit in 16k, they should consider a diet. One thing that came up in a side conversation in NYC was the possibility of only HPACKing the HEADERS frame; subsequent CONTINUATION frames would be uncompressed (so they don't affect state, and could be flow controlled). I kinda like it, YMMV. At any rate, a server (origin or proxy) is perfectly within its rights to 431 Request Header Fields Too Large any request that has a CONTINUATION, and then reset the stream. They'll learn pretty soon... Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2014 04:50:16 UTC