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

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:23:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcJLzx9RSQazfBE+sZZJh_3yk+ymDH-5dyAbtbPqhGj0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
h2-13 can be fragmented, but not interleaved. Those are different things!
-=R


On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

>
> 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
> proposal.
>
> 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 <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>
>> In message <
>> CAP+FsNdoESu1GyRwyU5GCQGXFxXaHNfi92d13K86gHxxwFYEJg@mail.gmail.com>
>> , 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 <gregw@intalio.com>
> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that
> scales
> http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
>
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2014 01:23:32 UTC

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