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

RE: #541: CONTINUATION - option #4

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 09:11:27 +0000
To: <mnot@mnot.net>, <w@1wt.eu>
CC: <jason.greene@redhat.com>, <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>, <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC201187082D6@sem002pd>
On Monday,07 July 2014 11:00, mnot@mnot.net wrote:
> I wonder if any sort of MHS setting is better-off being something coarse-grained
> (e.g., aligned on 1k or 4k) so that you don't have peers doing weird things like
> advertising 423 byte MHS, thereby screwing things up...

I think that's a good idea. If the max is defined as 'max = MHS*K', where K=1k or 4k or whatever.  Depending on the value selected for K, that could also provide some future-proofing in case, for whatever reason, the length field were to be made bigger.

What about doing the same thing for flow control values (i.e. coarse-grained values aligned on 1k or 4k or...)?

This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 09:12:27 UTC

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