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

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:47:07 +1000
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DBA36D8A-F81E-4D53-877D-1E6AFB1F940E@mnot.net>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>

On 10 Jul 2014, at 10:40 am, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lets assume that we're OK with larger frame sizes.
> At that point the question becomes: How large should the length field be?
> Imho, 64k for a frame is plenty large: 2048 frames/gig seems cheaply doable.
> I've said it elsewhere, in other ways but:
> I'm down with a larger max framesize (within limits: I feel that even 2^24 is pushing it).
> I'm supportive of a setting for max framesize.

There's another aspect here -- if we have larger frames, are people OK with the max frame size becoming the effective ceiling on compressed header block size, because CONTINUATION is ditched in the process?


Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 00:47:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:36 UTC