IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items

William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> Tue, 07 May 2013 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E97E21F8D2C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 12:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uz3b9-2UfZkt for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 12:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4877921F8E6E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2013 12:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UZnlg-0002Ec-Pp for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 19:41:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 19:41:44 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UZnlg-0002Ec-Pp@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1UZnlW-0002D8-0P for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 19:41:34 +0000
Received: from mail-qa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.216.50]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1UZnlU-0007cc-Tp for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 19:41:33 +0000
Received: by mail-qa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id bv4so609290qab.9 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 07 May 2013 12:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=l3JT0qQ4Eg5Y6WOufDZMAg5SM3rxjvISaBy7xR5Aliw=; b=nRuB/SNM3QP+omljdjKQUYsTcUDqgddH8Vf0hagr57n78nZBlHbqMAvLVI6HkYu6u+ YqRZPJZ9LSs+zpRzG8XfPDWYsoBELLUokS76uF5mMV+WXgRHWfemEMlbmoYn+IJcCbkQ 3HOFtHE6BDcSFyrQpEjITzDc/z5w4MqvPFtFuWJGhBWES+p9qslFKzaiFDkEvNvfdccf yQM9vFjQnr51JUZ8oQkPuzQNB0vCKTb5BErG3y2yWn1nR1bhJN6N/nByWQn3of6mpduT OfePtBj+9Cd9UtmKsFVUz22Xc0Q5cCSKT3hgIysN8jAziRSQxmG2rHeXK9uGWeQgWywl d18g==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=l3JT0qQ4Eg5Y6WOufDZMAg5SM3rxjvISaBy7xR5Aliw=; b=HgUa8Em1S5Gtc8PODpSEneG77S+kL+zRoDfltdDfN/nw6kOUA0ik7olQ4f8tnbJ36M FS/brxcvtGrNLDZcHFT4YKdHT/oM6JqqQGFSFx7e8/H21exo9fIfBgk9O+KBK/cLPnIu HcAmdn4OBGoeysJ0VZfIkV9AxFU+LBfpXt1iE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=l3JT0qQ4Eg5Y6WOufDZMAg5SM3rxjvISaBy7xR5Aliw=; b=HJr4PpnUbVNlCj/xvtsxAUeVDfskmkRzX7sqzltmTsgIhKojX/r2yivq16Z35ROrpg qeHWNsaKwHgDHS4Ys+OXPU92EZA7xS3GDwvmJJp24Dc8C8M6lpeIQMR7ZxCPKWrRuLAJ PomQFjFtjYG8S0OVf/vlTfl2ZDE3w6NRWm8pkeUKapEnNiFSn3dvJtPEIi8foraqxKKM 952JgUI3U/ORBfdR1D5ZlahrTpTAeAOaWDzUnuuLa571ML0ImDXSOh5fn8T3wRRYtUmO Kop4ilIORZ1qLGdDEL7pk07aG+4VxDJgATeGcfToT4OHztZPf3v4wIK0w1BMYcsiFx33 UuvQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.128.225 with SMTP id nr1mr2899621qeb.22.1367955666839; Tue, 07 May 2013 12:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: willchan@google.com
Received: by 10.229.180.4 with HTTP; Tue, 7 May 2013 12:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbcUDvmYjUjE703UTgOcYTSLBohR7EFw2Rb9u-EDkB7htg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbcUDvmYjUjE703UTgOcYTSLBohR7EFw2Rb9u-EDkB7htg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 16:41:06 -0300
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Mg9geX9aCPl9MY-bwUUqig2rPL8
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYgwggq4FNweDCEfbsp-fN3yJ8p35jx=fK8Xc5adk+fUVg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b6d9e6e977c6704dc25ff8f"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkIV/LQgBtFlpLuCNKXUAzNhWViXmNyW0EUc5wYYI0nKZlxMceNGbQtrdT+tb79nDCpt9JuyGYg9TeoYAf86PkznDW6V1EDLiZuLTdu/qZ65eco5QtlPLWW9ph4Pv7q4tWvv4E5tHfOlnxmYTkINyCtiXbHhXz1Ss7RbmzCbTIJpgPXIDUPqejnRsWTKkQ4oFuT9TQP
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.216.50; envelope-from=willchan@google.com; helo=mail-qa0-f50.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.066, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.324, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UZnlU-0007cc-Tp 784f2176c909aeb28c5e8dbccb32c414
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAA4WUYgwggq4FNweDCEfbsp-fN3yJ8p35jx=fK8Xc5adk+fUVg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17875
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I need to re-read the framing continuation thread (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JanMar/0600.html), but
I thought all this was addressed by that (8192 max frames, with frame
continuation bit). I see that the spec does not mention frame
continuations, so maybe we just have to write the text, or perhaps the
thread reached a different conclusion than I remember.


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:19 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. There is an existing ed note in the draft indicating that we
> currently do not have any way of specifying the maximum frame size.
> There are several possibilities:
>
>   a. We decide we don't need to report a maximum frame size.
>   b. We introduce a MAX_FRAME_SIZE setting for the SETTINGS frame.
>   c. We add a headers block to the RST_FRAME and GOAWAY frames ;-) ..
>
>   I think I prefer option (a) but (b) works too.
>
> 2. In the current draft we say that all implementations MUST be
> capable of supporting frames up to 8192 octets in length. We don't
> say, however, whether that size includes the 8-byte header or is that
> just payload octets?
>
> - James
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email