Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Asymmetry in the handling of SETTINGS frame (#1846)

Dmitri Tikhonov <notifications@github.com> Tue, 09 October 2018 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3266612D7F8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.455
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.456, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6K5FwIUK7lJ3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C5DD1293FB for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 12:19:43 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1539112783; bh=NAx+i8EHxCA1Bh207DFdxzE1NCHGcWlKJrpxp2Kn0is=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=OBAPytF46r/RL4f2ETLppHs5buDmCeKvC+f1r9V+MdQ2yH5lQ/lOz5v2si0z2lsGu Z/x8UexkjJ54o8OuYfBd6LCO6d0d5boeGNDw7b0XguMmbD3T5OBJWjSZr+KTqH/kO5 ijKeYsiNKO0MjPXeiWPWV4sKS47WHopHSfmy1Azk=
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab32e138c64fec6281b8d35f417735319f0d0ccbb292cf0000000117d4c14f92a169ce15f10683@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1846/428317517@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1846@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1846@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Asymmetry in the handling of SETTINGS frame (#1846)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bbcff4f94443_60553fa96e4d45c0835c"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: dtikhonov
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/Tz8mLoPJX9NB5W0K1456zALLegk>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 19:19:46 -0000

> Is it the maximum length of a HEADERS frame, or the maximum length of the decoded headers?

RFC 7540 makes it clear:

> This advisory setting informs a peer of the maximum size of header list that the sender is prepared to accept, in octets.  The value is based on the uncompressed size of header fields, including the length of the name and value in octets plus an overhead of 32 octets for each header field.

-- 
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/1846#issuecomment-428317517