W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

RE: hpack static table question?

From: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 16:51:57 +0000
To: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
CC: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6C71876BDCCD01488E70A2399529D5E532D61EC2@ADELE.crf.canon.fr>
I hope my previous email makes clear the reasoning for requiring this copy.

Yes this copy has a cost, both in bytes on the wire, and in CPU, but hopefully it closes a potential vector for attacks.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Hurley [mailto:hurley@todesschaf.org]
> Sent: lundi 2 juin 2014 18:44
> To: Cory Benfield
> Cc: Greg Wilkins; IETF HTTP WG; Ilari Liusvaara; Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
> Subject: Re: hpack static table question?
> I was wondering this about a month back, when I was helping debug an issue
> centered around this case (a copy of a static entry being evicted). So I looked
> back in the list archives, and saw that basically, some people wanted setting the
> table size to 0 to mean that literally no state was kept, not even references to
> the static table. (I'm on my phone, so no link to the thread, sorry.)
> Personally, I think it's silly, too (it means that periodically I have to send an
> indexed representation that I wouldn't have to if I could put static :method GET
> headers in the reference set). But it's what we have, and I have to re-send
> :method if some resources are POST anyway, so it's not a big loss. This is why I
> didn't bring it up a month ago.
> Personally, while I'm not a fan of this restriction, I'd rather keep the spec as is
> so we can get to last call sooner.
> --
> Peace,
>   -Nick
> On Jun 2, 2014 9:25 AM, "Cory Benfield" <cory@lukasa.co.uk> wrote:
> 	On 2 June 2014 17:05, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 	> Sorry, I don't understand.  What is the problem here exactly?
> 	Let's get everyone on the same page.
> 	Greg is concerned that he has to copy a header out of the static table
> 	into the header table in order to add it to the reference set. He has
> 	to do this because the spec states that references may only be to
> 	headers in the header set without being clear of _why_ that's the
> 	case.
> 	Tatsuhiro has provided the most compelling reason so far, which is
> 	that it enables the clearing of the reference set by the slightly
> 	obscure means of setting the header table size to zero via HTTP/2
> 	SETTINGS. I don't think anyone actually wants to do this.
> 	I think the real question here is: why can't we have references to the
> 	static table? What is the architectural reason that ruled it out?

Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 16:52:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC