Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames

One example is Kerberos tickets, which can be up to 64KB (after Base64 encoding).  While they're a tiny fraction of requests on the Internet, they exist in HTTP/1.1.

Sent from Windows Mail

From: K.Morgan@iaea.org<mailto:K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Sent: ?Thursday?, ?June? ?26?, ?2014 ?5?:?01? ?AM
To: Greg Wilkins<mailto:gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group<mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>


On Thursday,26 June 2014 00:01, gregw@intalio.com<mailto:gregw@intalio.com> wrote (emphasis added):

> Continuations are jumbo frames!  They are just really bad jumbo frames that only apply to headers,

> can't be efficiently handled and don't have a mechanism for end points to pre declare max acceptable

> sizes.   General jumbo frames would handle the headers use-case, but also provide a solution for those

> who need efficient large data.

>

> h2 should either just support general jumbo frames for both headers and data or no jumbo frames for either.

> By supporting jumbo headers, but not jumbo data, a double standard is being applied.  ...



My thoughts exactly.



Looking back at Richard's data [1][2] for request and response header sizes...

only 0.02% of requests have headers > 16KB

only 0.006% of responses have headers > 16KB



Who exactly are all these people so interested in header sets > 16KB that we need to have so much special effort in the spec (CONTINUATION) to support such a miniscule number of requests?



Seriously, who?  I looked back through the mailing list archives.  All I could find was the discussion for how to implement CONTINUATION, but I couldn't find a discussion about the motivation.



I'm ok with relegating jumbo frames to the world of h2 extensions (although Willy might disagree), but if so, CONTINUATION should also get ripped out.



Those who need headers >16KB can use the jumbo frame extension, or if they really love CONTINUATION they can put it in another h2 extension.



Ship it without CONTINUATION.





[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/0905.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/1018.html



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.