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

Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

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>
Message-ID: <27145.1405109223@critter.freebsd.dk>
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

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