Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.

On 12 July 2014 12:11, Roberto Peon <> wrote:

> I don't like interleaving-- it multiplicatively increases the DoS surface
> (and makes it significantly worse than it was with HTTP/1)

Ah interesting.     I don't think I had understood this objection before -
as I thought that the desire to fragment was driven by the desire to
interleave for QoS. Hence the push to drop the reference set.    But in
this case you want to fragment just to avoid buffering in the sender.

I don't  agree with the DOS part, but I can accept the buffering concern.
However I don't think that on it's own it can motivate having a dedicated
header fragmentation mechanism.   But if headers were able to be fragmented
for other reasons, then I think your concern is a good one and contrary the
proposal to allow multiple header frames only if the previous ones are full.

I also now get that you like max-framesize setting, but not a max-header
size setting.

Not sure this understanding gets us any closer to consensus, but good to
understand anyway.


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

Received on Saturday, 12 July 2014 02:43:54 UTC