- From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:01:16 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAH_y2NGkhi-N2gQdf6xwzb17Dy9g5HO8Q7Sj_8HhV4_JMF_ywg@mail.gmail.com>
Mark, I think that a declared header limit, regardless of exact semantics, should be declared in terms of uncompressed header size rather than header block size. We should be decoupling HTTP semantics from the framing layer and with all the other proposals being currently considered (large frames, fragmented headers, etc.) then I think we are hopefully moving away from having any header limits (implicit or explicit) related to the frame size. With regards to the change in semantics that you suggest, I'm fine with that. It really just means that it is not a protocol error for a sender to ignore the setting. cheers On 16 July 2014 13:41, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > A lot of the discussion around < > > >. > > Thoughts? > > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > > > > > -- Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 04:01:44 UTC