- From: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:50:11 +0800
- To: Alek Storm <alek.storm@gmail.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014–04–20, at 5:55 AM, Alek Storm <alek.storm@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. Are PING frame receivers obligated to respond with PING+ACK? > 2. Must the PING+ACK payload be identical to that of the original PING? From the spec: “Receivers of a PING frame that does not include an ACK flag MUST send a PING frame with the ACK flag set in response, with an identical payload.” If you don’t want a reply but only side-band communication, you may send a PING with ACK pre-set. The spec defines behavior for this case and does not mention a protocol violation. > 3. May the sender generate additional PING frames before the first is ACK’d? Why not? There’s no state. Also, the other end can’t reliably tell the difference. > 4. May intermediaries forward PING frames? Where would they get forwarded? End-to-end would be nice, but without a stream ID you can usually only go one hop. The spec leaves a little ambiguity, which seems OK to me. Come to think of it, was end-to-end, stream-wise PING considered and rejected for a particular reason? I guess it would tend to flood origin servers that are usually cached, so that’s a major vulnerability.
Received on Sunday, 20 April 2014 02:50:48 UTC