Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discuss max-header-list-size from the other side (#2774)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

kazuho commented on this pull request.



> -including the length of the name and value in bytes plus an overhead of 32 bytes
-for each header field.
+An HTTP/3 implementation MAY impose a limit on the maximum size of the message
+header it will accept on an individual HTTP message.  A server that receives a
+larger header field list than it is willing to handle can send an HTTP 431
+(Request Header Fields Too Large) status code {{?RFC6585}}.  A client can
+discard responses that it cannot process.  The size of a header field list is
+calculated based on the uncompressed size of header fields, including the length
+of the name and value in bytes plus an overhead of 32 bytes for each header
+field.
+
+If an implementation wishes to advise its peer of this limit, it can be conveyed
+as a number of bytes in the `SETTINGS_MAX_HEADER_LIST_SIZE` parameter. An
+implementation which has received this parameter SHOULD NOT send an HTTP message
+header which exceeds the indicated size, as this will likely produce an error
+and could disrupt the entire connection if the peer reacts negatively.  However,

@ianswett This issue is about an _HTTP_ setting. Maybe you're comment is for one of the "Retire CID" issues of the transport?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2774#discussion_r293184299