On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote: > > The real question with such an extension is the reverse direction -- does the client also advertise their maximum response header size? What should a server do if the request a client sent produces a response the client isn't going to accept due to header size? I think the options are either: downgrade to 1.1, send a 4xx response, or send a 5xx response. I want to say 406, but not quite. In any case, with a 400 or 500 you can explain in plain text (or HTML) what the problem is, and maybe even how to fix it (or at least to give up); not so easy with a RST_STREAM. On 3 July 2014 23:45, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote: > Based on some of the other discussions about max header sizes for proxies, > and given the confusion that would ensue concerning "sent" and "received" > header size settings, I would say there should just be one limit for both > directions. > > Settings simply say "this is what I will accept." You don't have to advertise what you'll send -- just send it. If you say you're willing to receive 64K and the other guy is willing to receive 16K, who knows, *e might send you 64K. Odds are against it, though. Whether you're upstream or downstream or it's a request or a response isn't relevant, at this level. -- Matthew Kerwin http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 14:09:18 UTC