- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:47:55 +0000
- To: Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>
- cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, ynir.ietf@gmail.com, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CAEn92TpaQU2zpvcVP=_09iEchqVJonrFzgGUCXRQBSk1Wf84jA@mail.gmail.com>, Johnny Graetting er writes: >Expanding the thought: > >If we allow the minimum to be smaller than the default frame size, we will >get servers who close connections (because they don't want to deal with >processing the frame, and RST_STREAM isn't an option), and we will get >clients who repeatedly spin up a new connection and retry the request. This is simply not true. Why would a client ever send a 16KB HEADERS to a lightbulb which never has and never will emit a single set-cookies header ? Only if a client, point blank, decides to send a request larger than the server can handle, will there be a problem. Please detail the scenarious where that happens ? -- 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 20:48:18 UTC