Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Robert Wilton's QPACK Comment 3 (#4802)

[afrind <[e-mail]>]

I'm trying to address Robert's second point:

> (2) Senders probably won't really know that the reason the stream has failed is because they are hitting some arbitrary limit in the receiver, and even if they did then I'm not sure there is anything that they can do about it.

The mechanism to address that in HTTP/3 is with the advisory setting, though it's slightly different in that the setting applies to the entire field section, and it's conceivable an implementation could have another, smaller limit for any individual field name or value.  It's easier to pretend that isn't the case.

For these reasons, I stumbled a bit on the exact wording of the text last week and ran out of time because of other commitments.

I'm thinking something along the lines of

 "an implementation really ought to be able to decode a string as long as their advisory setting"   

and/or

 "if an implementation has a limit on the maximum size of string it can decode, it would be really nice to inform the peer about it with the advisory setting".
 
Is that reasonable?  Or am I barking up the completely wrong tree?

-- 
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/issues/4802#issuecomment-771100337