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

Re: #541: CONTINUATION

From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 16:56:30 -0500
Cc: Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <49BFC0CD-E3F7-49B6-AD84-69850643A227@redhat.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>

On Jul 3, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3 July 2014 14:34, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> To be clear, I believe that proposal 4 is two things:
>> 
>> 1. A setting that describes the maximum permissible compressed size of
>> a header block (default 16K)
>> 
>> 2. A mandate to fill all frames carrying header block fragments if
>> they are followed by a CONTINUATION
>> 
>> In the normal case, this would mean that an implementation could avoid
>> even implementing CONTINUATION.
>> 
>> That is, if we get this right and say that padding can be used to fill
>> the frame, otherwise we're back in the poop.
> 
> 
> Thinking on this more, I think that we need to say that the setting
> can't be set to <16383, or we end up with pathological cases.
> 

Can you share some examples you were thinking of?  Is it something like someone sets a 1 byte limit?

--
Jason T. Greene
WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 21:57:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 September 2019 17:48:19 UTC