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

I mentioned this previously, but large set-cookie headers designed to clear
out cookies.

The primary motivation was backward compatibility, as we saw when launching
SPDY that assumptions about max header size were often invalid. I've seen
complaints that URL are capped at Xk before, for instance.

I'll say again that it seems like folks are reacting not to CONTINUATIONS,
but to the fact that headers have unlimited length.

Continuations could be used with small header sizes, and should not be
confused with the size/anti-backwards compatibility arguments
-=R
On Jun 26, 2014 3:41 PM, <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:

> On 26 June 2014 23:41 grmocg@gmail.com wrote:
> > Today the use of CONTINUATION does not imply header block > 16k.
> > So be careful what you're considering "evil", and why :)
> > -=R
>
> The point is CONTINUATIONS _can_ be used to be "evil" and as Greg points
> out, there is an incentive to use them that way.
>
> Please share your use case for CONTINUATION when the header block is not
> >16KB.
>
> So far all we have is Kerberos tickets. Was Kerberos the primary
> motivation for CONTINUATION & infinite headers?
>
> 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.
>