- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:02:45 +0000
- To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <78AC8C33-6851-4EA2-93D2-1CFD37020F9F@gmail.com>, Yoav Nir writes: >> And what exactly would the SHOULD level requirement make anybody do >> differently anyway ? > >It means that if you are creating a client (or server) that supports >HTTP/2, then you SHOULD be able to work with a server (or client) that >advertises a 256-byte max-framesize. Otherwise we get two perfectly >legitimate implementations that fail to interoperate. That's a bad >thing. That SHOULD does not make any sense to me. Do you want us to also include SHOULD requirements for 257, 258, 512, 1024, 1536, 2048 ... ? Once you realize that 256 is not magic, your SHOULD requirement reduces to: HTTP/2 implementations SHOULD be able to work with any other HTTP/2 implementation. ...which I really hope we don't need to tell people. I also personally have a hard time seeing what I would code differently to interoperate with a peer announcing 256 as opposed to 16k or 1MB max frame size: frame_size = min(his_settings, my_preference); What am I missing ? -- 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.
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 12:03:10 UTC