- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:46:24 +1000
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: K.Morgan@iaea.org, jpinner@twitter.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 11 Jul 2014, at 10:52 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > In message <46062217-9FD9-4F8C-AFE2-E03A8A1C8BB3@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham writes: >> On 11 Jul 2014, at 7:41 pm, <K.Morgan@iaea.org> <K.Morgan@iaea.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On Friday,11 July 2014 09:32, jpinner@twitter.com wrote: >>> >>>> How do people feel about the following compromise: >>> >>> -1 >>> It eliminates both purposes of the 'Greg et al' proposal: >>> a) Eliminate the CONTINUATION ugliness (complexity, processing, >> etc.), and >>> b) add bits & settings for tuning frame lengths. >> >> See my previous message to Willy. These are not issues, they're a wish >> list. >> >> To be clear the time to argue over the aesthetics of the protocol >> has long passed; > > This is not a matter of aesthetics Mark. > > As currently specified CONTINUATION is a giant invitation to DoS attacks. ... and we're talking about changing the protocol to address that. Your way to do that is to get rid of CONTINUATION; there are other ways too. This is in our issues list as #550 and #551; "get rid of CONTINUATION because PHK thinks it's ugly" is not. Thanks, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2014 06:46:50 UTC