W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591

From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:59:13 +0300
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20140812165912.GA21666@LK-Perkele-VII>
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:03:24PM -0700, Martin Thomson wrote:
> We don't really say this, but the implication is that an extension
> frame can appear anywhere, for any stream. Worst case, you can have
> frames appearing with any stream number at any time.
> 
> Are we OK with this?
> 
> Or... do we want to limit the sending of extension frames on streams
> somehow. Note that the most permissibly constrained frame type is
> PRIORITY, which can appear in any state other than "idle". A similar
> constraint would be relatively easy to enact.

Just as IMO:

I don't think "out-of-the-blue" extension frames have any use in idle
state (since state must be idle afterwards as well). And letting those
frames modify the sub-state in some manner would likely be a DOS attack
waiting to happen.

But negotated extensions are different matter, since those might define
new stream-opening frame types (or something even more radical).


-Ilari
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 16:59:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC