W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:37:09 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
cc: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <27485.1405111029@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CABkgnnUVdDFYDBSfsaGGE1MN0taT-dsQdB1Nj5i6N-U_ex2YgQ@mail.gmail.com>, Martin Thomson w
rites:
>On 11 July 2014 13:23, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

>> I mean that if we insist the entire header-set goes into a single
>> frame at most *zero* set of headers can be incomplete at any point
>> in time.
>
>That's a valid point, though I was considering the fact that you have
>to read/buffer/process that frame, which takes non-zero time.  The
>point being that whether it's 0 or [0,1), this is very much different
>to N.

I'll agree that 1 is much easier to manage than N, but zero better still
by a significant margin.

The main difference between 0 and 1 is that we make it the senders job
to preannounce the memory requirement (ie: frame length).

This is the BIG thing in both DoS detection/mitigation and in efficiency.



-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 20:37:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC