IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Questions on Frame Size

Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp> Fri, 21 June 2013 02:42 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 4741B21F9BCA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 746Oz-xSzvfI for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53D4B21F9BC9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UprHL-0008D5-56 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 02:40:47 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 02:40:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UprHL-0008D5-56@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>) id 1UprH8-0008Bz-3d for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 02:40:34 +0000
Received: from mo00.iij.ad.jp ([202.232.30.145] helo=omgo.iij.ad.jp) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>) id 1UprH6-0000uU-JW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 02:40:34 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iij.ad.jp; h=Message-ID: Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; i=ohtsu@iij.ad.jp; s=omgo1; t=1371782409; x= 1372992009; bh=yMnDTyma3vf4zlH8zpoCKQkvJmYtyxXuYsdaEqvT/KI=; b=CMyOqlWDnYWqYIcB aKLxiS5PgmFCZfEhfgjeychxb1523LnXQzkCFHIc0TUjCbwS0J7P80iiRz9Pkg/LRu7hIWeZhPUxv Ien4VOfAVmduCxn6TK6WN9DZVxquTGP9fAccI3oYLecmty59hXkwAQZMrY1yLHWqKjcbkibY9511z s=;
Received: by omgo.iij.ad.jp (mo00) id r5L2e9up028018; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:40:09 +0900
Message-ID: <51C3BD06.6020501@iij.ad.jp>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:40:06 +0900
From: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <51C293FD.1040806@iij.ad.jp> <CABP7RbeS7zeVnOM7R0mcUe+t-M+Ta3GVZr+1A3gSjY8QqCOgzQ@mail.gmail.com> <51C3823E.7010706@iij.ad.jp> <51C3A2A4.6030601@treenet.co.nz> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1306201809370.21683@egate.xpasc.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1306201809370.21683@egate.xpasc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=202.232.30.145; envelope-from=ohtsu@iij.ad.jp; helo=omgo.iij.ad.jp
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.334, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.297, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UprH6-0000uU-JW 24e88722f685360cf76d5ee62201d43d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Questions on Frame Size
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51C3BD06.6020501@iij.ad.jp>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18332
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>

It seems that everyone agreed max 16K in HTTP but is not sure for use of 64K now.

I think it is a bad idea to require for all implementers to suport 64K frame size because
it is too early to discuss future extensions for non-HTTP protocols.

I've just made two commits for

1. change the requirement of min size of frame to 8K as previous one (maybe 16K is okay)
2. write max frame size of 16K explicity when carrying HTTP

https://github.com/shigeki/http2-spec/compare/shigeki_20130621

If this is accepted, I will submit the PR.

Regards,

(2013/06/21 10:14), David Morris wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
>> Which implies that server-push is a different protocol to HTTP already.
>
> Different from 1.1, but a new feature of 2.0
>
>
>> IIRC: the 64K limit is for next-generation requirements of systems running
>> HTTP at TB speeds. Allowing new frames to be added for those larger line rates
>> is very useful given they are already on the horizon and HTTP/2.0 has long
>> lifetime ahead.
>
> In the SF Interim, we agreed to 64K/16K (frame/vs HTTP) to allow for the
> larger frame required to establish a TLS connection without added round
> trips because the initial TLS setup exceeded a single frame.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email