Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-00.txt

Content filtering is a different matter entirely, and usually happens
in a way that is content-sensitive. The kind of "silent dropping"
that's being discussed here is indiscriminate, with no consideration
being given to the frame content. The fact of the matter is that
silently dropping end-to-end frames without understanding why they've
been transmitted is extremely dangerous.

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
<> wrote:
> Le Dim 10 novembre 2013 19:11, James M Snell a écrit :
>> -1 on the "may be dropped". As I've mentioned before, silently
>> dropping end-to-end frames could significantly impact the semantics of
>> the stream data and could have very bad unintended side effects. The
>> result is that end-to-end extension frames become impossible to rely
>> upon. The better (and more reliable) option is to require that
>> end-to-end frames are either passed through untouched or the stream is
>> closed with an RST_STREAM if the endpoint does not intend to pass them
>> along.
> And the better option will live only as long as no one figures how to push
> objectionable optional content such as ads, trackers or cookies with it,
> then you'll see those frames dropped regardless of what the spec says.
> It's an unfortunate reality today that the people who control web sites
> have not always the best interests of the people who consult them in mind,
> and silently dropping parts of the stream at the browser or at any
> intermediary level is here to stay. You can not specify morals in the spec
> and giving an all-or-nothing power to one of the nodes involved in the
> http/2 dialog is not going to work.
> Regards,
> --
> Nicolas Mailhot

Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2013 16:44:32 UTC