Re: H2: Should there be a limit to tolerance ?

> Am 17.02.2017 um 12:17 schrieb Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>:
> 
> --------
> In message <D199BE90-58D7-4E1B-A223-82A7D40651DF@greenbytes.de>, Stefan Eissing
> writes:
> 
>> That leaves the cases where
>> a) your counterpart speaks a flavour of valid h2 that you do not know. 
>> That is the extensibility that the spec tries to achieve, AFAICT.
> 
> Yes, and that's smart & fine & everything.
> 
> And in general you can probably expect the counterpart to stop
> sending extensions when nothing comes back indicating they make
> any difference.
> 
> But what if the counterpart just keeps hammering you with frames
> which you ignore ?
> 
> What if it keeps hammering you with *only* frames which get ignored ?
> 
> What if it does so at very high rate, because it is buggy or hostile ?
> 
> What if the buggy implementation was in several million Internet-Of-Shit
> things that got poured into concrete years ago ?
> 
> There's got to be _some_ limit to patience ?

Sure. But do you think it should be part of the RFC?

> -- 
> 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.
> 

Stefan Eissing

<green/>bytes GmbH
Hafenstrasse 16
48155 M√ľnster
www.greenbytes.de

Received on Friday, 17 February 2017 11:22:03 UTC