Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

I try to avoid caffeine for that exact reason :)

On 12 July 2014 22:35, Willy Tarreau <> wrote:
> Option 5 allows agents with smaller buffers to reject CONTINUATION frames,
> which removes state commitment and DoS concern. It seems to be the closest
> to the situation we have in 1.1 where a message that does not fit in the
> recipient's buffers is simply rejected (eg: 400 or 502).

It makes it easier to detect a bad actor, sure.  I don't think that it
changes the equation any though.  If you have a settings mismatch
between hops, then you trade HOL safety for buffering and stalling.

I think that this is just one of those cases where there are bad
options no matter what combination you choose.

> Option 2 becomes better when you enable max_frame_size since it removes
> the "May have HOL".

I think that we've converged on saying that max_frame_size (and
max_header_block_size) have some useful properties in that regard.

Received on Sunday, 13 July 2014 20:18:06 UTC