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

Re: #541: CONTINUATION

From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:39:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH_hAJGput_ymVmpGA431N-qfAQoORFr2m4KhWsYfJO3+RNpUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark,

On 2 July 2014 12:12, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> I’d like to ask the implementers (as identified on the CC: line) what their preferences are, and what they can’t live with. If there’s another option, please say so, but only if it’s materially different, and you believe it has a chance of achieving consensus.

Speaking strictly for hyper, I can live with any of the above options,
assuming that everyone else can live with them. What I cannot live
with is any proposal that ends up with having some intermediaries or
servers reject some headers without me being able to discover this
ahead of time.

As an idealist I'd like to be able to ban large header sizes outright,
but I believe that action to be outside our charter, so I suspect that
2) is unacceptable. I would absolutely want to put it on the table
if/when HTTP/3 gets discussed.

If we settle on leaving CONTINUATION in place but some intermediaries
continue to refuse to use them, I'll consider writing an extension for
negotiating their use. I'd rather a server/intermediary told me "I
will kill this connection if you send this frame" (or, more likely, "I
will kill this connection if you send more than this many bytes of
headers"). I appreciate that the CONTINUATION frame is not intended to
be optional, but for me pragmatism rules over idealism.

Cory
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 13:39:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:08 UTC