Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Tue, 07 May 2013 19:03 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 0E59621F93E5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 12:03:27 -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 eogQkc+qaY5J for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 12:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9C821F93E2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2013 12:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UZnA9-00085t-Ks for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 19:02:57 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 19:02:57 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UZnA9-00085t-Ks@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1UZn9y-00083u-Bp for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 19:02:46 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com ([209.85.214.172]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1UZn9x-0006Ft-7w for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 19:02:46 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id xk17so914420obc.17 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 07 May 2013 12:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=8QnvItiIGhY2U9tC+GDXA4cnr7oOVe6ky5YZIBr+m38=; b=mxeIO/OYrajX/bEbN403aN8dMXwr0Y/5g4bbXXgW+HIdbtoxdytMB97X2JdNwEEPHb CkTVys0pkJPJk5AaOkO0ka03kDKcpjRaprDmEU/AlHHQJTPYVlC02f5+GbsJ/tiaGW1R LmK8vREk3hz18BmVtXkewsdoLYgZlU3oZKaquTdc/LB+ABqQgUV+GCqJwA3DRfHHYNFU Loe57o3EUCadM/tC23+5CaasbYGfkQiYY3QyrJL7ECBpBZfX9zm9irWAZM1XYIUFMBzA v/mX7XY69o+L0KZg6NJCItnwNEavGcKkZLxRrt86wFhm/tgp8g8YldW1VgYIh9bzXwsh DqEw==
X-Received: by 10.60.92.41 with SMTP id cj9mr954303oeb.31.1367953339242; Tue, 07 May 2013 12:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.3.137 with HTTP; Tue, 7 May 2013 12:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNfQEZdCJKyevpqW+1_EkspYGvxb9W6VOZi7gd_4XBgmFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbcUDvmYjUjE703UTgOcYTSLBohR7EFw2Rb9u-EDkB7htg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWDvyUajrhYLvGzqeenUsyq9h720LYZNUzqzHNR8r0LxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNfQEZdCJKyevpqW+1_EkspYGvxb9W6VOZi7gd_4XBgmFA@mail.gmail.com>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 12:01:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbegQdBMF7i7Zr0sncm0daKaQWXktNoFEY94a697KG75ew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.172; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f172.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.690, 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: maggie.w3.org 1UZn9x-0006Ft-7w 059dc0aafe60eb822476c41a3fa770af
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7RbegQdBMF7i7Zr0sncm0daKaQWXktNoFEY94a697KG75ew@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17872
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>

Roberto, not quite sure I'm following what you're saying. The answer
to what exactly shouldn't be in question?

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> since a frame != the payload of a frame, I think the answer shouldn't be in
> question.
> A frame includes the framing and overhead bytes, and (regardless of how it
> may have been done in the past) the frame-size field either corresponds to
> this entity, or needs to be renamed.
> -=R
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 7 May 2013 08:19, 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.
>>
>> This has been discussed.  The problem is that you have to then FIX the
>> maximum frame size and require that all implementations support that
>> size.  No one can decide on a goldilocks number: 4096, 8192, 16384,
>> 32768 or 65536 have all been variously proposed.  Others want to add
>> extra bits to the length field to open up other options (i.e.,
>> petabytes).
>>
>> >   b. We introduce a MAX_FRAME_SIZE setting for the SETTINGS frame.
>>
>> This introduces another "known state" issue (see Gabriel's issues).
>> You have to have a default (see above), and then a robust way to
>> change.
>>
>> >   c. We add a headers block to the RST_FRAME and GOAWAY frames ;-) ..
>>
>> I'm not following you.
>>
>> >   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?
>>
>> That's a simple fix.  Toss a coin.  ;)
>>
>