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

Re: YAC Proposal

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 16:43:42 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NFQnkhzp2e6F8OZ=h5Wdi0wBusN+iqBBeWjV4Em+t7GuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>, "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 3 July 2014 10:42, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wonder how many servers don't. I don't know of any major servers with
> such a cap, but I'm surely in the dark.
> Do we know how many place a cap on the size of response headers?
>

Jetty currently has a setting for max request and response header size,
which both default to 8k.   Users can set it as large as they like, but it
does use more memory and we are probably not as efficient as we could be.

If just about everything supports it, why would it be an extension?
>

We'd love to keep the same behaviour, but we simply do not trust a
mechanism that will only be activated for tine fraction of users that set a
max header size > 20-something KB.   The benefit of Jumbo frames is that
they allow the same code path to be used for small and large headers - thus
it becomes just a matter of configuration.

If we can drop CONTINUATIONS in favour of jumbo frames, then I do not think
this needs to be an extension.   If we don't then I do.

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, 3 July 2014 06:44:10 UTC

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