Re: [hybi] hum #3: Message

Arman Djusupov <arman@noemax.com> Fri, 06 August 2010 11:25 UTC

Return-Path: <arman@noemax.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033BF3A699C for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 04:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.432
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XOrLqaYXBNiJ for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 04:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.noemax.com (mail.noemax.com [64.34.201.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09EB23A69A0 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 04:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.21] by mail.noemax.com (IceWarp 9.4.1) with ASMTP (SSL) id OTG67230; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:26:30 +0300
Message-ID: <4C5BF15E.1090608@noemax.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:26:22 +0300
From: Arman Djusupov <arman@noemax.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com>
References: <4C5AE93D.4040803@ericsson.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008051758290.5947@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <AANLkTik0kbh14s2JZARY2MFh0iNGV7H+B4Px4yG+wX44@mail.gmail.com> <71BCE4BF-D3F6-4F94-BE76-306BDF6A2E67@apple.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008051930160.5947@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4C5B1695.6070704@gmx.de> <F8E2F702-9F74-4316-B3B2-D5A731409ABF@apple.com> <AANLkTin=gO9D8K5NVhqCRKki-jrDmTYqF-gBjp9X41GN@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin=gO9D8K5NVhqCRKki-jrDmTYqF-gBjp9X41GN@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] hum #3: Message
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:25:57 -0000

Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> Agree with both these points.  If a sender does fragment a large
> message, they ALSO need to specify the full size up front, for the
> same reasons we specify the frame size up front.  You want to avoid
> sentinel-based reads.

If the sender knows the size of the message upfront then there is no point to fragment it. The sender can just specify the total length of the message and keep pumping data into the connection, while the reader can count the received bytes and so know where the message ends. The whole reason of having fragmentation and framing is to remove the need to know the full size of the message prior to sending it. 

Arman