- From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:59:13 +0300
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:03:24PM -0700, Martin Thomson wrote: > We don't really say this, but the implication is that an extension > frame can appear anywhere, for any stream. Worst case, you can have > frames appearing with any stream number at any time. > > Are we OK with this? > > Or... do we want to limit the sending of extension frames on streams > somehow. Note that the most permissibly constrained frame type is > PRIORITY, which can appear in any state other than "idle". A similar > constraint would be relatively easy to enact. Just as IMO: I don't think "out-of-the-blue" extension frames have any use in idle state (since state must be idle afterwards as well). And letting those frames modify the sub-state in some manner would likely be a DOS attack waiting to happen. But negotated extensions are different matter, since those might define new stream-opening frame types (or something even more radical). -Ilari
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 16:59:41 UTC