- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:44:34 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
We've had a rollicking discussion about the design tradeoffs in CONTINUATION, especially regarding HOL blocking and DoS considerations. I see very little new information entering that discussion, and I think everyone has come to understand the tradeoffs. For a refresher, please see the wiki: https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/wiki/ContinuationProposals I proposed two options the other day: 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. 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). Although there have been some tentative proposals for additional options since, I haven't heard a clamour for support for them, so I think these are realistically the ways we can go. As stated before, there will no doubt be tweaking and adjustments made to these, but I think we're in a place where we can choose a general direction. I'd like to hear: 1) Your preferred outcome (if any) 2) Whether you can live with the other option, and if not, why "I have no preference" is useful information too. If you indicate you can't live with one (or both) of the options, you MUST give a detailed, relevant reason as to why; omitting the reason means your "can't live with" will be ignored. Thanks, P.S. Please state *your* preference, not what you think the WG can live with. P.P.S. This is not a call for more discussion; please resist replying to others' preferences. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 00:45:00 UTC