Re: Large Frame Proposal

In summary the case put against this proposal is that some think 31 bits
might be too large.

There has also been a concern put about header fragmentation, but h2-13
cannot be fragmented either, so that is really not a point against this

Other than that, I thought we were pretty close to consensus.      None of
the counter proposals made have come close to the near consensus shown in
this thread.

I think we are missing a good opportunity to settle many issues and move on.

On 12 July 2014 06:15, Poul-Henning Kamp <> wrote:

> In message <
> , Roberto Peon writes:
> >As I mentioned before, IIRC we've seen response headers as large as 12mb,
> >at which point we said: OK, lets have a 2G limit (effectively infinite),
> >because clearly we can't predict this.
> So there are two questions we need to ask ourselves:
> 1. Should the protocol support this case ?
> 2. By default or by configuration ?
> 3. Who should suffer most ?
> My answers are:  Yes, configuration and sender.
> Yes, because it is stupid to make a protocol with arbitrary limitations.
> Configuration because we should not force all HTTP/2.0 implementations
> to over-reserve memory on the off-chance that they ever see one of
> these requests.
> Sender, because in particular in a case like this, it is important to
> give the receiver advance notice that exceptional memory management
> will be required.
> --
> 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.

Greg Wilkins <> HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 23:27:34 UTC