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

RE: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:57:24 +0000
To: <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, <gregw@intalio.com>
CC: <mnot@mnot.net>, <w@1wt.eu>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC201186F24D7@sem002pd>
On Wednesday,25 June 2014 19:47, phk@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
> * 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.

I like this option because it requires the least amount of processing.

Needs clarification...
1. When the "jumbo" bit is set, is the possible length 14-bits + 8-bytes or just 8-bytes?  (I vote for just 8 bytes)

2. SETTINGS are only 32 bits. Depending on your answer to #1, there would need to be two or three SETTINGS (low, high, high-high) to capture the full range of possible MAX frame size values.  Perhaps a better option would be to have the setting defined as a multiple of 16K chunks (minus one?).

> * Remove every mention of CONTINUATION

This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 17:58:40 UTC

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