Subject: Frame size errors

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:31:40 -0700

I've prepared a pull request that tightens the restrictions on frame sizes.

https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/616

Brad Fitzpatrick raised issue #611 with identifying when a
FRAME_SIZE_ERROR is appropriate.  I plan to answer the question by
placing hard limits on frame size, requiring a FRAME_SIZE_ERROR in all
cases where the frame size is undefined.  This should close the issue
regarding what fields are open to (unnegotiated) extension.

Any objections to this change?  It's marked editorial in the tracker,
but we're at a stage now that I think that substantive changes even as
minor as this need to be raised here.  I'll hold this for a while and
pull this in unless I hear screams.

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:49:51 +0000

Looks fine to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:32 AM
To: HTTP Working Group
Subject: Frame size errors

Brad Fitzpatrick raised issue #611 with identifying when a FRAME_SIZE_ERROR is appropriate.  I plan to answer the question by placing hard limits on frame size, requiring a FRAME_SIZE_ERROR in all cases where the frame size is undefined.  This should close the issue regarding what fields are open to (unnegotiated) extension.

Any objections to this change?  It's marked editorial in the tracker, but we're at a stage now that I think that substantive changes even as minor as this need to be raised here.  I'll hold this for a while and pull this in unless I hear screams.

---

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:59:51 +1000

> pull this in unless I hear screams.
Just a question on specific word usage: where you have "A ... ​frame of a
length other than ..." I'd have used "... frame with a length ...". It
hints a bit more strongly that the "length" to which we refer is the field
-- which, as was mentioned in a thread a while back, is actually the length
of the payload, not the length of the frame *per se*.

That's just me, though. If you disagree, I'm happy with the change.

(Also I haven't scanned for other usages, to see if that would introduce
inconsistency or an annoyingly large changeset.)

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:50:34 -0700

On Sep 24, 2014 12:59 AM, "Matthew Kerwin" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> On 24 September 2014 02:31, Martin
length other than ..." I'd have used "... frame with a length ...". It
hints a bit more strongly that the "length" to which we refer is the field
-- which, as was mentioned in a thread a while back, is actually the length
of the payload, not the length of the frame per se.

I'm ok with that. To be honest, this probably isn't my best work, since I
hadn't slept in more than 24 hours when I did that. I'll fix it up, unless
you want to give me a PR ;)