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

Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:23:55 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
cc: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <27414.1405110235@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CABkgnnV=zt7bs_0AfydAPfN0_bYbQ4k6qFUxVpZ0qodN5VuLQw@mail.gmail.com>, Martin Thomson w
>On 11 July 2014 13:09, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

>>>This point:
>>>> The current design handles this fairly well, at most one set of headers can
>>>> be incomplete at any point in time (sending a large number of incomplete
>>>> headers and keeping most of them incomplete most of the time is an
>>>> excellent attack vector, which the design currently precludes).
>> This would be even more the case if we insist, as proposed, that all
>> headers go into a single frame.
>You mean that it would help avoid having multiple incomplete header
>blocks outstanding.  If so, then yes.  Knowing size up front means
>that you can RST streams that you know will blow your limits (though
>with compression, you can't be sure that a smaller frame won't).

I mean that if we insist the entire header-set goes into a single
frame at most *zero* set of headers can be incomplete at any point
in time.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 20:24:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC