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

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 06:22:04 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <95923.1404973324@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <DBA36D8A-F81E-4D53-877D-1E6AFB1F940E@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham writes:

>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?

I'm fine with a 64KB max possible (but subject to SETTINGS) size of
compressed HEADERS.

In fact I'd really hate it if we opened for megabyte HEADERS and had to
cope with them in the future.

This also slightly mitigaes the "HEADERS not subject to window" issue.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 06:22:29 UTC

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