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

Re: #541: CONTINUATION

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 13:46:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXJUh=4-m6PBV4chx5gB+sEjCzyp+p+QhZoAqvw4nzqQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, John Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 8 July 2014 12:52,  <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:
> What does it matter if the uncompressed headers are 32M, or 32G for that matter? As soon as you reach the limit you are willing to commit in resources to the uncompressed headers, you'll stop and respond with 431.

Correct.  And I'm merely noting that having a setting does nothing to
help you avoid having to follow that process.  The setting - on its
own - is therefore of marginal value.  Mark was suggesting that we
consider the setting in isolation, which is the point that I was
addressing.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 20:47:13 UTC

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