- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 11:19:17 +1100
- To: Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com>
- Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, mnot <mnot@mnot.net>, willy@haproxy.org
Hi Victor, I think that most of your comments were addressed in response to other reviews, but there is one thing no one else picked up on: On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com> wrote: > "Implementations MUST either ensure that any early data that is delivered > late > is either discarded or consistently identified and processed." -- I am not > quite sure what exactly this means. Is that (re)statement of the > requirement > that the early data status is not changed in the middle of processing? Late delivery of early data could lead to a server (or intermediary acting as one) processing that data in a fashion that is inconsistent with other server instances. While it's true that the data wasn't replayed toward *this* server instance, that doesn't mean that it wasn't replayed toward another instance. It's important to treat that data properly. FWIW, ekr and I discussed what to do with this in NSS, and while it's suboptimal, we took the cheap option: we discard early data that arrives after the handshake completes. I've clarified this some, I hope: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/442
Received on Friday, 1 December 2017 00:19:40 UTC