- From: Sam Pullara <spullara@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:21:00 -0700
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
How sure are we that the entire idea of header compression isn't a bad idea? I implemented something similar in the WebLogic T3 protocol (BubblingAbbrevTable, probably still in there) and it was mostly just a pain. If I were to go back I would just use gzip with some agreed upon seed dictionary. Thought I would bring this up since it seems like it is a very controversial feature to begin with. Sam On Jul 11, 2013, at 10:14 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, the ability to set compression context size to 0 is very useful. > My fears around this area are: > > 1. In order to achieve maximum throughput, Intermediaries may opt to > *always* set compression context to 0, forcing the headers to always > be passed as Literals, killing the utility of having the header > compression mechanism there in the first place. > > 2. The assumption of a non-zero default compression context size when > the connection is established opens a race condition that a malicious > sender could exploit in a denial of service attack. Yes, the receiver > could opt to terminate the connection once it detects bad behavior, > but there is still a potential window of time there where the receiver > could be forced to do significant additional work. > > (This is particularly bad given that header continuations are unbounded.) > > 3. Setting the compression context size to 0 does not stop the sender > from sending the Indexed Literal instructions anyway. The receiving > endpoint would still be required to process those instructions even if > the data is not actually being indexed, causing CPU cycles to be > consumed. For any individual block of headers it may not be a > significant load, but it's something that needs to be addressed. > > (This can be fixed in the spec by stating that any attempt to Index > any individual (name,value) whose size is greater than the available > header table size results in a Compression Error. Making this change > would mean that when Compression Context size is 0, the only operation > that would not result in an error is Literal without Indexing. This > was discussed on the list but as far as I can tell it's not yet > captured in the spec). > > 4. The fact that header continuations can be unbounded is deeply > troubling, especially given that the endpoint is required to buffer > and process the complete header block (well.. that's only half true, > the encoding does allow for incremental processing of the HEADERS > frame payloads but the spec requires that the complete header block is > always processed). Sure, the recipient is free to terminate the > connection as soon as it detects bad behavior, but the sender could > end up forcing the recipient to do a significant amount of extra > processing with a never ending sequence of HEADERS frames. Smart > implementations will know how to deal with this, yes, but overall it > adds to the already growing list of "New Complex Things" that an > HTTP/2 implementer needs to know about. > > (In the implementation I've done, I provide a configuration > parameter that allows a developer to cap the number of the > continuations and the total size of the header block) > > I know that we're in "implementation" phase right now and that > everyone is busy getting their code ready for testing in August, but > after updating my implementation to the latest version of the draft, > my concerns with regards to stateful header compression definitely > remain. > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Martin Thomson > <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10 July 2013 21:20, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: >>> It seems not to be negotiable from the recipients side. >> >> Compression context size = 0 is entirely negotiable from the recipient >> end, with a small wrinkle, that I know some folks are working on. >> Which is, a client can start using a default compression context size >> prior to learning that a server has no space (substitute intermediary >> as appropriate there). >> >
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2013 19:20:56 UTC