Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues

On 17 July 2014 14:45, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>  > c) Remove CONTINUATION from the specification, allow HEADERS to be
> fragmented 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).
>
> For such an invasive change,


Well it is not all that invasive.  It is essentially continuations redone
without the issues forced on it by hpack's RefSet.   But either way
"invasive" is subjective not technical reason, just like "ugly".

I think we need more than a sentence.
>

The details have been put in the wiki as requested: "Remove CONTINUATIONS,
Fragment HEADERS"
https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/wiki/ContinuationProposals

I also see getting consensus around that being very problematic.


Where?  I thought you asked us to put the proposals into the wiki with pros
and cons?  The only con listed against this proposal is the suggestion that
it may increase the DoS attack surface but that is disputed if it is a
significant increase or not.      Can we have some more detail about what
is "very problematic" otherwise it is impossible to refute arguments that
are only given as meta-reasons.



-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.