Re: Proposal: New Frame Size Text (was: Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items)

James M Snell <> Mon, 13 May 2013 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCF3421F8532 for <>; Mon, 13 May 2013 14:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.074
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.074 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.525, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qiDh9XYWQpsC for <>; Mon, 13 May 2013 14:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD4A21F93EA for <>; Mon, 13 May 2013 14:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1Uc0ZX-0005OL-DN for; Mon, 13 May 2013 21:46:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 21:46:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1Uc0ZL-0005N2-Li for; Mon, 13 May 2013 21:46:07 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1Uc0ZL-0007Nt-1E for; Mon, 13 May 2013 21:46:07 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id va2so1748539obc.27 for <>; Mon, 13 May 2013 14:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=0bdm4hg3zWe/OZNmjKALRABZZJUl5PL6C/p0C4zHfCs=; b=rXg9S+w8n5Ubvu/vPVsZX9oW4EArEUu/bkMQ/nl4uN38k+lXgXcrfL3B9wnLutdUpH JJWlF2/PHSRCq5USWMAw9oGrEUTY2EK72nLsaih+7LAvgtRcQasmeMARaUkIDge9nJA8 g86XEgbURx6P+Nht4D17hIosFNZjhErmdsP4FUrmQ1+tKm1bgcV6cx9/2dnM/FVNMTTY fZQVXLpXd80Neg3gYNIQWtzFnhM392WPkOWFQNkgHgRk4dGeBWSKT4kmy5jGPriCb5x7 0bu8+vPJO8fIHMsK03bPn0YHROkPirwCLZpjDhe7gp8AzmEuPMbyqyiXJ0Z1WfRg0wY4 AGQg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id q7mr1757587oex.135.1368481541093; Mon, 13 May 2013 14:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 13 May 2013 14:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: James M Snell <>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 14:45:20 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Martin Thomson <>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <>, =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= <>, "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.746, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1Uc0ZL-0007Nt-1E 0c791a82b15078d5a305b2211e0dbf07
Subject: Re: Proposal: New Frame Size Text (was: Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/17978
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

I'm not convinced it completely solves the problem either, but it at
least does something. I have the distinct feeling that the *right*
solution won't truly become obvious until we get better implementation
and testing across the board.

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Martin Thomson
<> wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 17:12, James M Snell <> wrote:
>> Suggested replacement text for the current "Frame Size" discussion in
>> the spec...
>> ...
>>    While the flow control protocol and framing mechanisms defined by
>> this specification are largely independent of one another, the flow
>> control WINDOW_SIZE places an upper limit on the total amount of data
>> an endpoint can send to a peer at any given time. DATA, HEADERS,
>> HEADERS+PRIORITY and PUSH_PROMISE frame sizes MUST NOT exceed the
>> current WINDOW_SIZE for the stream or connection and MUST NOT be
>> greater than 65,535 bytes. The 8 bytes of the frame header are not
>> counted toward this limit.
>>    When a new connection is established, both endpoints are permitted
>> to begin sending frames prior to the establishment of an initial flow
>> control WINDOW_SIZE. Accordingly, there is a risk that an endpoint
>> might initially send frames that are too large for the peer to handle.
>> To mitigate this risk, it is RECOMMENDED that, until the initial
>> WINDOW_SIZE is established, the total size of individual
>> header-bearing frames not exceed the current TCP Maximum Segment Size
>> (MSS) and that individual DATA frames are no larger than 4096 bytes.
>> The 8-byte frame header is included in these limits.
>> If an endpoint is unable to process a frame due to its size and the
>> frame specifies any stream identifier field value other than 0x0, the
>> endpoint MUST respond with a <xref target="StreamErrorHandler">stream
>> error</xref> using the FRAME_TOO_LARGE error code. If the stream
>> identifier field value is 0x0, the endpoint MUST send a <xref
>> target="ConnectionErrorHandler">connection error</xref> using the
>> FRAME_TOO_LARGE error code.
>> ...
> I think that there is good advice here, namely: don't send a frame
> larger than the current window (actually, both of them) permits.
> What bothers me is that this is the only control on frame size.  And
> it's not a very good one.  Unless you are operating at the
> teeny-window end of the flow control space, then you probably want a
> wider open window than this.  And the commitment that processing a
> frame of size X imposes is greater than the commitment that buffering
> a frame of size X imposes.
> I'm not sure that this solves the problem.  At least not all of it.