- From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2021 11:50:25 +1100
- To: "Kazuho Oku" <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
- Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021, at 10:54, Kazuho Oku wrote: > In case of H2O / fastly.com, this is a FIXME that never has been fixed. > H2O ignores SETTINGS_MAX_TABLE_SIZE. Ahh, that's not great. It makes <4096 pretty perilous for clients. I wonder if that is the same reason for other implementations. I didn't realize that Cory merged #1003; I'm not that far through my email yet... My intent was to keep this open a little. I'll revert that and reopen it so that we can keep discussing it. Given where things stand, the change you suggest in #1004 is probably positive from a compatibility perspective. It allows implementations to ignore increases in the maximum. For your implementation, all you have to do is deal with a reduction in the maximum table size more elegantly (I'd start with a connection error of type INTERNAL_ERROR). See: https://github.com/httpwg/http2-spec/pull/1005 I thought for a while we needed to update RFC 7541 as a result, but a careful read reveals that we're OK. The most interesting part is the caution about reducing the maximum size. It was a little fiddly to write.
Received on Friday, 24 December 2021 00:51:00 UTC