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

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

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:37:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NEwgchuQyXHZsNR07t-SgbOuMPJKm-JOB4GkgtcAXS+7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 26 June 2014 19:49, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:

> 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.


As many parts of http infrastructure have a defacto 8kB header limit, then
any traffic with 64KB headers is only going to work with prior agreement
between client, intermediaries and servers.   Sounds like a negotiated
extension to me!

With the current h2 draft, many implementation will probably not support
continuations at all, so such kerberos tickets are likely to receive a 413
response unless there is prior negotiation along the path.   There is not
even a mechanism to determine the max size supported by a path, only
rejection if something is too big.  Surely a negotiated big header
extension would be better than this uncertainty?

regards


cheers



-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 19:38:12 UTC

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