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

Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 14:49:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_ik5H2R-KVyt0dac7o2kd-WwW8mAvUh_TazM9U4oCH1tg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> In message <CA+pLO_h2799vs37eY1HaSnBUmcGkGW-tmjTCJe1WeKZJRAtQGA@mail.gmail.com>, Jeff Pinner writ
> es:
>>So am I to read this as a client might advertise a max frame size of
>>256 bytes and then request a 2GB file?
> yes.
> And the server is free to return 418 or react in any other way it might
> find appropriate.

assuming i've already returned the 418, what would the suggestion be?

I'm assuming RST_STREAM with some error code, not sure which one
though -- do we need a new one?
Received on Sunday, 13 July 2014 21:50:09 UTC

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