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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 19:02:41 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
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>
Message-ID: <1385.1403722961@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CABkgnnURYFsYq7WwSKpSbE8XXjUBFxcXTDJVkD5H5ByZyriKXA@mail.gmail.com>
, Martin Thomson writes:

>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. ?

If we make L2 8 byte wide, I'd prefer a)

>2. If the bit is set, do the 8 additional bytes count toward this number?

I'd prefer "no"


-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 19:03:09 UTC

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