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

Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:20:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW6D35sQGeHc0_SCR4B6NH31G1GOWzpGeVnWTAX9mEnNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 17 July 2014 10:04, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com> wrote:
> Right. The thinking there is that 99.8% of headers are < 16K, so this is more than enough, and when you have a .2% you can just bump the frame size.

Here my only concern is that you don't have any way of triggering this
bump.   Say we got rid of CONTINUATION...

What does a client do if it prefers to have 16K frames?  How does a
server indicate that it wants to send headers that exceed this limit?

Flip that around: how does a client indicate that it wants to send
headers that exceed this limit?  At least a server can send a
response... and it has a stream upon which to send it.

Browsers, which compete on soul tolerance (thanks Carsten), now have a
strong incentive to advertise > 16K frame sizes.  I think that you
will find that this is an outcome that browser will be especially
unhappy with.

>> Why not just reset the stream?

I think that resetting a stream is the only good response (with an
optional 431).  I don't know what you would invent something else that
has the same net effect.
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 17:20:52 UTC

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