- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:40:20 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- cc: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CABkgnnVPVSXVU+YPvCgjZ1vnbOQ++xn_FfWqMw8Wcr4A0ZVhow@mail.gmail.com> , Martin Thomson writes: >On 18 July 2014 11:20, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: >> I don't think it says anywhere that you cant *send* the block, but if >> you do, you should expect it to get rejected. > >I hadn't considered that interpretation at all. > >I can't see that working out well. I'd have thought that if you set a >limit of 10k, then treating anything that exceeds that as a connection >error is the logical conclusion. Otherwise, you have to process more >than you said you wanted to receive, just to maintain a consistent >compression state. I'd expect behaviour in this area to develop and depend on field experience. I really don't think requests (or responses!) exceeding the limit are going to happen outside attack-scenarios. And setting or no setting, receivers will have limits, the only difference is that we tell senders about them. -- 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, 18 July 2014 18:40:43 UTC