W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2018

RE: Question about RFC7540 (HTTP/2) section 10.5.1

From: Lucas Pardue <Lucas.Pardue@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 10:46:15 +0000
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7CF7F94CB496BF4FAB1676F375F9666A3BB1FD90@bgb01xud1012>
Hi Amos,

> Not just from a purist perspective. If any one header block is too large
> to process properly, or was not processed by the recipient, it screws up
> the HPACK state - causing corruption of all following HEADERS and
> CONTINUATION frames. So yes it MUST be the last thing on that
> connection. The only optional part is whether the 4xx status code is
> produced before termination.

I think we are agreeing, thanks for the highlighting that point.

To go back to the specific problem with this in mind. It seems that the H2 layer is improperly configured to support the HTTP semantic of this particular use case. Which leads to the connection error; the implementation choosing not to execute the optional 4xx status doen't meet the client expectation.


This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
Received on Saturday, 7 April 2018 10:46:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:59 UTC