- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:37:09 +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>
In message <CABkgnnUVdDFYDBSfsaGGE1MN0taT-dsQdB1Nj5i6N-U_ex2YgQ@mail.gmail.com>, Martin Thomson w rites: >On 11 July 2014 13:23, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: >> 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. > >That's a valid point, though I was considering the fact that you have >to read/buffer/process that frame, which takes non-zero time. The >point being that whether it's 0 or [0,1), this is very much different >to N. I'll agree that 1 is much easier to manage than N, but zero better still by a significant margin. The main difference between 0 and 1 is that we make it the senders job to preannounce the memory requirement (ie: frame length). This is the BIG thing in both DoS detection/mitigation and in efficiency. -- 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 20:37:33 UTC