Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/3 frame encodings are unnecessarily difficult to serialize and parse (#2396)

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

If we want to do this, we should still mandate that all extension frames
have a length, so endpoints can easily skip over them

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019, 08:42 ianswett <[e-mail] wrote:

> Multiple HTTP/3 frames have lengths, but do not require the length to
> deserialize.
>
> On the serialization side, those require extra work to determine the size
> before serializing them, which may or may not be easy. SETTINGs is fairly
> complex because it's a series of varints, so you either need to do a
> two-pass serialization or write the SETTINGs and then go back and write the
> length(possibly assuming it's a 2 byte length?).
>
> On the parsing side, extra work is required to verify that the parsed
> length matches the specified length.
>
> This also wastes a byte or two in a few cases.
>
> I suggest we use the principle that if it's easier to serialize and
> deserialize without a frame length then the length should be omitted.
>
> Related to #2395 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2395>
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2396>, or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGRFtSXbUdtdRyi8ayoXbmMiMe6muzujks5vIi3mgaJpZM4abScO>
> .
>


-- 
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/2396#issuecomment-459163963