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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:56:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnURYFsYq7WwSKpSbE8XXjUBFxcXTDJVkD5H5ByZyriKXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
On 25 June 2014 10:47, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> My proposal was intended to slot as seamlessly in as possible for
> that reason:
>
> * Define one of the reserved bits as adding an 8 byte network
>   byte order length field in front of the payload.  (No need to
>   make it terribly complicated, 8 bytes out of 16KB+ is < epsilon.)
>
> * Add SETTINGS defaulting to 16KB, and mention that using the
>   extention length is only legal if SETTINGS > 16KB has been
>   received.
>
> * Remove every mention of CONTINUATION

Just for clarification,

1. Assuming L1 is the 14 bits in the header and L2 is the 64 bits
before the payload, is the length of the frame:
  a. L2
  b. L1 << 64 | L2
  c. L2 << 14 | L1
  d. L1 + L2
  e. ?

2. If the bit is set, do the 8 additional bytes count toward this number?
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 17:56:31 UTC

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