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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:18:23 +0200
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <20140625191823.GR5531@1wt.eu>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:02:41PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> 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"

I agree with Poul-Henning on both responses. They are the choices with the
least operations and the least chances of doing the wrong thing.

Willy
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 19:18:53 UTC

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