- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:07:03 +0000
- To: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
- cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CANV5PPXaPUGEJWvSgAo2ftX82AL5Gqch1NnYVYXm7pP9N=k42A@mail.gmail.com> , Nicholas Hurley writes: >> > 1c) ...with some minimum (which might be 256, though a 256 byte frame >> could be all padding...) > >This minimum needs to be bigger, like I've said before. A laughable size >like 256 just provides too much opportunity for someone to shoot themselves >in the face. 4k is still my suggestion here, based on telemetry on >compressed header sizes in Firefox. There are a lot of HTTP traffic never seen by Firefox, for instance "internet of things" gadgets reporting to home-ships. For these kind of applications 256 will be plenty. The reason to have a minimum size in the first place, is to make sure that you can actually do a "GET /" or "GET /robots.txt" and similar "convention" requests to all servers, all the time. If people configure there server for a 256 size, they get what the deserve. This is not a error-42 protection measure. -- 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 Friday, 11 July 2014 20:07:29 UTC