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

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

MikeBishop 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,

It is advisory, in that you're being told in advance what message size the peer will refuse to process.  When this was recommended to be a stream error, the risk was that a stream error can always be promoted to a connection error at implementation discretion, and a connection error would tear everything else down with it.

Now that we recommend an HTTP status code instead, this language might be unnecessary.

-- 
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_r293503517