Re: Questions on Frame Size

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Thu, 20 June 2013 06:46 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 9DBBA21F9AD2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.571
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 XHh2pK4qOu7d for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2982B21F9BBC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UpYcr-0007i7-2M for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:45:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:45:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UpYcr-0007i7-2M@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UpYca-0007gx-Q9 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:45:28 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.219.51]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UpYcW-00043Y-JH for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:45:28 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id i4so7458855oah.24 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=UurXUgwvFgpDf/eDC4gL+if4ZcGyWJ+Je6b7DsYndGU=; b=OlyOMEQGa25Udv0essRKAxIlugjqHf3jG6V5eGb58xqptyRbymZmX4PEyf9ehL3xLY bGUHt9J3I1V8l04+BZfjysymzZZTdiLpPs8gIU8qdpqjCI/YE7/etsb5ijNCaY/JKySc IT3BVgXtZomPbA9NHLcSm6ymULeMrdh8jLdgK/0YNiYTJS7ayQW1yC8qqueSdeBDbVW6 68V/rpbeaivdsa9r54rmlgeei5B5QA1gQOEJzhjeJfZwC+ottE0oGDJEBMfOXglQ7U57 pE/fBtzl7igEUDR8dnqtUZp5wNAKk0Hl5YfIL9na4OZCZ63oFQQKw015VLXnpTheNO7D F9tQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.55.10 with SMTP id n10mr3916372oep.45.1371710698484; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.71.10 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51C293FD.1040806@iij.ad.jp>
References: <51C293FD.1040806@iij.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:44:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNd5Z3VgK6BBF6DJJdVdkdRj9bjdmKsKVcR_+cc3rSyrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01294b52eafd6e04df904851"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.51; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f51.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.667, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UpYcW-00043Y-JH 55ef1a16d8dbbbfc4c0d2221740d0628
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Questions on Frame Size
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNd5Z3VgK6BBF6DJJdVdkdRj9bjdmKsKVcR_+cc3rSyrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18313
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>

The spec is in flux w.r.t. layering, where this will be clarified.
Right now, as I understand it, however, the intent is that HTTP will be
limited to 16k frame sizes, and anything larger would get you a protocol
error or similar.
-=R


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The issues about frame size were discussed and might had some
> agreements at SF interium but please let me ask some questions on the
> current spec of "3.3.2 Frame Size" which is updated by
>
> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/commit/fd703b572cfc527582c0716e59f2c4044ae195a8
>
> 1. "For instance, individual DATA and HEADERS frames used to express
> HTTP request and response messages (see Section 4) are not permitted
> to exceed 16,383 octets of payload."
>
> PUSH_PROMISE is not listed.
> Is the data size of PUSH_PROMISE also limited to 16K or is it exceptional
> for some reason?
>
> 2. "The absolute maximum amount of payload data any individual frame
>  can contain is 65,535 octets. All implementations SHOULD be capable
>  of receiving and minimally processing frames up to this size."
>
> If PUSH_PROMISE has a 16K limit, the max frame size is still 64K,
> however, any other frames besides DATA, HEADERS and PUSH_PROMISE
> are only several octets at most.
>
> Is it for the future extension not to change the frame length to 14bit?
> If so, why the spec requires all implementations to support the 64K frame
>  size only for the future extension?
>
> Regards,
>
>