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

Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 11:16:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXjbgLcRbX8T-9pmd=TKhsNq84y=r-cvasfdQ-WRTME-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 3 June 2014 11:06, Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you please expand in a more technical way the arguments of why it
> is a bad idea, and how the existence of continuations is orthogonal to
> header size ?
> Making examples would help.

A header block can contain any amount of actual data.  Anywhere from
absolutely nothing (because it's all padding, or it's really short) to
really ---ing gigantic (because it uses HPACK).

Deciding that you want to reject a frame based on a signal that is so
abstractly connected to the actual thing you are concerned is a bad
idea.  It is essentially arbitrary (hence the date/RGB comment).
Arbitrary rejections lead to all sorts of bad behaviour from clients
trying to avoid arbitrary behaviour, up to and including cargo
cult-type actions.

(And yes, I'm aware of how this is an argument for having a known,
deterministic way to know whether a request is acceptable before
sending it, but, as I explained, I don't think that this is feasible.)
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 18:17:12 UTC

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