- From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:00:52 +1000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 02:01:20 UTC
On 21 July 2014 05:43, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > Do we need to say anything else here, or can we go ahead and close this > issue? I'm happy with that wording. Implies ignorability, which helps the prospects for future extensions to work. Although as implementations have to decode them to keep headertable up to date, perhaps a some extra words saying implementations should be aware they could be used for DoS, which is a little different to HTTP headers, as implementations will be expanding those and checking the size, while ignored frames might not be checked. cheers -- Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 02:01:20 UTC