- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 09:31:20 -0700
- To: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeK4cFuEVhty2oOW+jp-xi4y3tn31n7Q+5FCs_Dn86Oiw@mail.gmail.com>
Clarification: If you were meaning to say that the server/client should close the connection, etc. upon receipt of bad settings, then I wholly agree. The client shouldn't bother to validate data that it won't interpret, however, which is what I was saying very poorly in the last email. -=R On Jul 16, 2013 9:26 AM, "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that knowledge client-side of things like that is unwarranted > complexity -- the server must sanity check that data anyway to deal with > malicious clients, or, in the case of port-80 checksum "failures" which > have allowed corrupted bits through. > > -=R > On Jul 16, 2013 8:35 AM, "Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa" <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 for strict validation. >> >> Regarding validation for SETTINGS, how about validating the values in >> SETTINGS frame? >> >> For example, the value in SETTINGS has unsigned 32 bit and it means >> SETTINGS_INITIAL_WINDOW_SIZE >> could have, say, 2^31, which is invalid for flow control. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04#section-6.9.1 says >> if such value is received in >> WINDOW_UPDATE frame, it must be responded with FLOW_CONTROL_ERROR. >> But it does not say about SETTINGS frame for invalid window size (it may >> infer that but still). >> I think it would be good to add some error handling of values on SETTINGS >> frame reception. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>wrote: >> >>> On 16/07/2013 10:20 a.m., Martin Thomson wrote: >>> >>>> On 15 July 2013 12:44, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm wondering why the text proscribes error handling of MUST ignore in >>>>> response to violation of the MUST NOT send provision. >>>>> >>>> I think that someone either caught Postel's DIsease, or is in remission. >>>> >>>> Can we either change it to PROTOCOL ERROR (preferred) or just be >>>>> silent on >>>>> handling of the error? >>>>> >>>> PROTOCOL_ERROR seems appropriate. >>>> >>>> Opened: >>>> https://github.com/http2/**http2-spec/issues/174<https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/174> >>>> >>> >>> +1. And double that for more strictness everywhere. >>> >>> >>> Amos >>> >>> >>
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 16:31:47 UTC