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

Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:46:24 +1000
Cc: K.Morgan@iaea.org, jpinner@twitter.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <35796F71-CEA3-40E9-BCAF-EDBCB9D64611@mnot.net>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>

On 11 Jul 2014, at 10:52 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> In message <46062217-9FD9-4F8C-AFE2-E03A8A1C8BB3@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham writes:
>> On 11 Jul 2014, at 7:41 pm, <K.Morgan@iaea.org> <K.Morgan@iaea.org> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Friday,11 July 2014 09:32, jpinner@twitter.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>> How do people feel about the following compromise:
>>> 
>>> -1
>>> It eliminates both purposes of the 'Greg et al' proposal:
>>> a) Eliminate the CONTINUATION ugliness (complexity, processing, 
>> etc.), and
>>> b) add bits & settings for tuning frame lengths.
>> 
>> See my previous message to Willy. These are not issues, they're a wish 
>> list. 
>> 
>> To be clear the time to argue over the aesthetics of the protocol 
>> has long passed; 
> 
> This is not a matter of aesthetics Mark.
> 
> As currently specified CONTINUATION is a giant invitation to DoS attacks.

... and we're talking about changing the protocol to address that. Your way to do that is to get rid of CONTINUATION; there are other ways too.

This is in our issues list as #550 and #551; "get rid of CONTINUATION because PHK thinks it's ugly" is not.

Thanks,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2014 06:46:50 UTC

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