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

I'm good with this and think it is a good step to clear the decks.

With regards to 4 byte alignment, I'm not that concerned eitherway.
However if there are those that are really concerned about alignment, then
I think the best solution would be to move the padding length to the header
and require (or suggest?) that all frames are padding to a 4 byte boundary
(but make that a separate proposal if you want it).


On 12 July 2014 16:46, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:

> There has been a lot of discussion over the last two weeks about various
> proposals to address a number of issues. While we're not at the point where
> we have consensus to accept any of them wholesale, I do think we can reduce
> the surface area of the discussion by declaring consensus on the less
> controversial parts.
> So: it appears that we have consensus to address issue #553 by:
> * Expanding the frame size field to 24 bits
> * Reserving additional bits to align
> * Adding a setting advertising the maximum frame size allowed by the
> recipient, with a default of 16K octets and a minimum of 256 octets
> This would address (only) <
> >.
> Does anyone have a problem with that, or further comments?
> Regards,
> --
> Mark Nottingham

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

Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 00:32:54 UTC