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

Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:40:22 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20140716074022.GA25391@1wt.eu>
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:08:49PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Assuming that we can separate the removal of the reference set from HPACK from how we deal with CONTINUATION altogether (which may be optimistic, but let's try), I currently see two realistic options for (largely) resolving #550 and #551 -
> 
> a) Remove CONTINUATION from the specification and add a new setting that
> dictates the maximum HEADERS/PUSH_PROMISE frame size (as distinct from
> max_frame_size) a peer is willing to receive. I.e., the setting refers to the
> compressed header size.

I think that if we're going with a 24-bit max_frame_size, we'll indeed need to
have a separate max_header_size.

> b) Keep CONTINUATION in the specification, and add a new setting that advises
> the maximum header set size (i.e,. uncompressed) a peer is willing to receive
> (but might not imply PROTOCOL_ERROR or STREAM_ERROR on receipt).

I suspect that your proposal about only hinting in the spec that header sets
larger than XYZ kB are very likely going to receive a 431 should cover this.

Just my 2 cents,
Willy
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 07:40:47 UTC

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