Re: Questions on Frame Size

Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp> Thu, 20 June 2013 22:32 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 27AC421F9E1A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:32:06 -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 B0B4VmLA47bj for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E472121F9E06 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UpnMi-0006M1-Ui for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:30:05 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:30:04 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UpnMi-0006M1-Ui@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 1UpnMQ-0004YZ-DD for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:29:46 +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 1UpnMO-0008Jm-TE for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:29:46 +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=1371767361; x= 1372976961; bh=ZIEOJTobpY659qgfGJvLwrCe8navjY1rIOvLxxv9ea8=; b=YtLrxMJFtefm5Tdd eZsMdFlCOFk1kab7jPFyo5zajlvVPgmCmE91i9aKA79ClUSCAdQFjViA2dX4ToYliJ9lhk4HRE1vX LkuQtSql/ZkT7/tiHBoeeFxumDCyOpG+VIffKN12ueqAbyOZ7OzViy5lL+ihFRx2vHoGV30SVjNjq g=;
Received: by omgo.iij.ad.jp (mo00) id r5KMTKaO018322; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:29:21 +0900
Message-ID: <51C3823E.7010706@iij.ad.jp>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:29:18 +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>
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbeS7zeVnOM7R0mcUe+t-M+Ta3GVZr+1A3gSjY8QqCOgzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; 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=-4.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.801, 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 1UpnMO-0008Jm-TE 808af7f3613814470ed35bb3e7c5787b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Questions on Frame Size
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51C3823E.7010706@iij.ad.jp>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18327
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>

Sorry, I replied this only to James.  Re-sent it to WG again.

(2013/06/21 1:29), James M Snell wrote:
> My understanding is...
>
> When PUSH_PROMISE is used for HTTP, then yes, it would be limited to 16k.
> When PUSH_PROMISE is used for any protocol other than HTTP, it could
> be up to 64k.
>
> We are defining the Framing Layer separately from the HTTP Layer in
> order to allow other protocols to be built on top of the framing layer
> at some point.

The spec would be applied to other protocols like SPDY but we should not
discuss it here because in "1.1 Document Organization" it says that

"While some of the framing layer concepts are isolated from HTTP, building
a generic framing layer has not been a goal. The framing layer is tailored
to the needs of the HTTP protocol and server push. "

and

"However, the ability to reuse the HTTP/2.0 framing layer is a non goal. "
in "5.1 Separation of Framing Layer and Application Layer "

We should start discussion at first whether we change them or not.

>
>
>
> 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,
>>
>