- 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>
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