- From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 13:19:46 -0700
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> William, I tend to disagree with you on this argument. Just because RFC2616 > did not impose limits on header size, it does not mean that implementations > would have to support unbounded lengths. If the sole purpose of CONTINUATION > is to support headers larger than 16383 bytes, then any product which is not > able to support more than this size of headers will have no use of CONTINUATION > and will not even be able to deal correctly with them, so it better not try to > implement them and do stupid things. It's not quite the same because even if you want to reply to requests with more than 16k of headers with an HTTP 431 for example, you don't necessarily want to tear down the connection so you can reply to other outstanding requests or accept new ones. This means that you must process that CONTINUATION frames since they can update the HPACK header table. You can of course discard the headers fields.
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 20:20:13 UTC