Francis et al,
not also that the protocol does support fragmentation and a 1004 frame
too large error.
Even the 1004 error does not carry an indication of what an acceptable
size is, so the client/tool/intermediary that receives a 1004 will
either have to fail or guess a smaller frames size - potentially
binary chopping down to find an acceptable size, which might be sub
optimal.
I simple optional header in the handshake declaring the max frame size
(which intermediaries could adjust) would be very complimentary to the
existing fragmentation and 1004 features and I can't think of any
significant down side.
regards
On 13 July 2011 00:13, Francis Brosnan Blazquez <francis(_at_)aspl(_dot_)es>
wrote:
Hi,
Recently, I posted [1] that websocket protocol should include an
indication about max frame size that is willing to accept the connecting
peer.
Many pointed this is not an issue because you could use a stream
oriented API (like TCP send/recv and others), but that only bypasses the
problem (in some cases) not solves it.
Websocket protocol is frame based and every frame based protocol
designed until now has/need such feature or similar. Even TCP, for those
that proposes to use a stream oriented API as a solution, includes a
more complex mechanism than a simple max frame size (window based ack),
so each party can control/inform the sender. This is critical.
A good example for this would be the next. Let suppose you have a
constrained memory device (either because it is small or because it
accepts a large amount of connections). On that device you deploy a
websocket app that only accepts small messages (< 512 bytes, let's
say).
In this context, you can hard code at your web app (javascript) that
must not send messages larger than this size (so you control websocket
payload size) and in the case you need to, you must split them
properly.
However, even with this mechanism, you have no warranty that the browser
or an intermediary will join those messages into a single frame, causing
your device to receive a bigger message/frame than expected.
Assuming this I think we would require either to include a
Max-Frame-Size indication (or a really poor solution: to explicitly
state on the draft that frames must not be coalesced by intermediaries
or browsers).
Regards,
[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg07641.html
--
Francis Brosnan Blázquez <francis(_dot_)brosnan(_at_)aspl(_dot_)es>
ASPL
91 134 14 22 - 91 134 14 45 - 91 116 07 57
AVISO LEGAL
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Los datos
incluidos en el presente correo son confidenciales y sometidos a secreto
profesional, se prohíbe divulgarlos, en virtud de las leyes vigentes. Si
usted no lo es y lo ha recibido por error o tiene conocimiento del mismo
por cualquier motivo, le rogamos que nos lo comunique por este medio y
proceda a destruirlo o borrarlo.
En virtud de lo dispuesto en la Ley Orgánica 15/1999, de 13 de
diciembre, de Protección de Datos de Carácter Personal, le informamos de
que sus datos de carácter personal, recogidos de fuentes accesibles al
público o datos que usted nos ha facilitado previamente, proceden de
bases de datos propiedad de Advanced Software Production Line, S.L.
(ASPL). No obstante, usted puede ejercitar sus derechos de acceso,
rectificación, cancelación y oposición dispuestos en la mencionada Ley
Orgánica, notificándolo por escrito a:
ASPL - Protección Datos, C/Antonio Suárez 10 A-102, 28802, Alcalá de
Henares (Madrid).
_______________________________________________
hybi mailing list
hybi(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf