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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:41:55 -0500
Cc: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <92136D3D-EBE1-4441-8E4E-B26B739F69B6@redhat.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>

On Jun 27, 2014, at 1:33 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27 June 2014 11:31, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Even if you set table size to 0 you still have to process them before you can return a 413, since the setting is delayed. and you might get them before it takes effect. Only way to not process them is GOAWAY + close.
> A table of size zero means that you don't carry any state forward, so
> it's safe to discard the frames.

Only when it is in effect. A client can connect to the origin and send a ton of continuation frames, followed by additional requests at the same time as the server is sending the setting to set the table size to 0.Thos additional requests canít be handled because they contain state relative to the CONTINUATION. I suppose the server could reply with a 503 or something.

Jason T. Greene
WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 18:42:28 UTC

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