- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 16:34:01 -0700
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CABP7RbcD+=xsAjdkNSX-V5WF1=YRPrWEDMqxqsHEGNSt1JPhBw@mail.gmail.com>
I mean that when the proxy encounters unknown end to end frames on a stream, it chooses to either allow them thru, or closes the stream. On Oct 1, 2013 2:55 PM, "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > By 'All or Nothing', do you mean 'proxy drops all unknown' or 'proxy never > drops unknown', or is it some other meaning? > -=R > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:44 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I think you're missing what I'm saying, or I'm not saying it clearly >> enough. >> > I'll try to restate. >> > >> >> I'm very clear about what you're suggesting... >> >> > In mode 1, where the proxy has negotiated "http2" and has NOT negotiated >> > "experimental-http2" >> > The proxy MAY remove frames it does not understand. >> > Endpoints MUST NOT emit frames which, if removed, would desynchronize >> state. >> > A proxy which exists for security reasons would likely chose this mode. >> > >> > In mode 2, where the proxy HAS negotiated "experimental-http2", >> > The proxy MUST NOT remove unknown frames*. >> > Endpoints MAY emit frames which, if removed, would desynchronize state. >> > A proxy which exists for performance reasons might chose this mode. >> > This mode allows for arbitrary experimentation, including state-m >> > >> >> What I'm saying is that these "modes" would apply only to hop-by-hop >> frames that affect connection state. For end-to-end frames sent on a >> stream, however, it ought to be possible to send them in either mode >> with the All or Nothing semantics I've described. >> >> - James >> >> > *Perhaps there is a point-to-point or end-to-end bit or whatever, but >> if so, >> > that is in addition to the above, and cannot supplant it. >> > >> > Neither end-to-end nor point-to-point signifies that removal would cause >> > state desynchronization, and in the end, this is what we care about. >> > -=R >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:57 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Doing a RST_STREAM (which, arguably would be insufficient for the >> kind >> >> > of >> >> > error that you're talking about) unnecessarily removes the ability to >> >> > experiment with hint-like extensions, as I've said a number of times >> >> > before. >> >> > >> >> >> >> And as I have demonstrated a number of times before, taking the >> >> approach you suggest unnecessarily removes the ability to experiment >> >> with non-hint-like extensions. Given that the intermediary has no way >> >> of knowing what it is dealing with, the safest and only reliable >> >> option is to apply an All or Nothing policy. >> >> >> >> The RST_STREAM is more than sufficient for the kind of error I'm >> >> talking about. Specifically, it says, "I received something on this >> >> stream I didn't expect and don't want, so I'm terminating the stream". >> >> I fail to see how that is insufficient. >> >> >> >> That said, however, you and I have had this conversation before and I >> >> have no desire to go around on it again. Left only to you and I we >> >> likely would not come to an agreement. >> >> >> >> - James >> >> >> >> > If a proxy hasn't stated that it will not drop frames, then the only >> >> > non-standard frames allowed are those which, if dropped, cause no >> >> > desynchronization. >> >> > As an example, frames that state priority in some new way should be >> >> > perfectly safe and allowed. If dropped, no correctness is sacrificed. >> >> > >> >> > -=R >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:22 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Martin Thomson >> >> >> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >[snip] >> >> >> > If we need end-to-end extensions, then intermediaries need to >> ignore, >> >> >> > but >> >> >> > pass, unknown stuff. However, I think that we need to allow for >> >> >> > intermediaries that don't want to assume the risks associated with >> >> >> > extensions and allow intermediaries to drop unknown frames, but >> only >> >> >> > if >> >> >> > they >> >> >> > drop *all* unknown frames. >> >> >> >> >> >> -1 .. if the intermediary needs to drop unknown frames, then it >> needs >> >> >> to RST_STREAM. Allowing the intermediary to silently drop frames >> >> >> midstream can lead to potential disaster. Either let everything >> thru, >> >> >> or let nothing thru. Period. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 23:34:30 UTC