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

In message <>, 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

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