- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:43:36 +0200
- To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:32:26AM -0700, Jeff Pinner wrote: > How do people feel about the following compromise: > > 1) Increase frame size to 16-bits. > 2) Remove reference set from HPACK allowing for "streaming" decoding. > 3) Requiring that all ":"-headers appear first. > 4) Only allowing CONTINUATION if the previous frame is 2^16-1 bytes. > 5) Allowing interleaving of CONTINUATION frames with other frames. > > For implementors that know that they will never accept more than 64kb > of headers, they don't have to implement CONTINUATION frames. > > For implementors that are concerned about not receiving routing > headers and having to buffer full frames, they will be the first > things that show up and the rest of the headers can be proxied without > any buffering. > > For implementors that need to support headers > 64kb they can do so > using CONTINUATION frames. > > For implementors concerned about interleaving headers between multiple > streams, that is now allowed because the reference set does not > coincide with the end of the header block. > > For implementors that are concerned with spec complexity, the entire > notion of "header block fragments" is removed. > > Thoughts? I could live with that. At I consider this as a significant improvement over what we currently have. Willy
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 07:44:27 UTC