- From: Meiling Chen <chenmeiling@chinamobile.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:22:53 +0800
- To: "Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net>, ietf-http-wg <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2021 06:23:16 UTC
Hi Martin, Please see inline. From: Martin Thomson Date: 2021-02-17 13:34 To: ietf-http-wg Subject: Re: new draft for the minimum value setting mechanism of HTTP2.0 Window and Window_update On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, at 15:57, Meiling Chen wrote: > > Implementations could just withhold small flow control updates. Is there a specific reason for having a setting here? > > [Meiling] I don't quite understand the question, maybe the answer is not so accurate, we simply provide a way to set the minimum value to prevent some attacks that exploit the smaller value or because there is no default agreed minimum which lead to a normal message is mistaken as an attack. You suggest that implementations always ensure that their updates are large enough. This is a good recommendation. However, you also describe a setting. Why does one endpoint need to provide this value to the other endpoint? Can endpoints just do the right thing themselves? [Meiling] Yes, we describe a setting. There are two ways of setting, one is the default value setting, the other is the endpoint flexible setting.
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2021 06:23:16 UTC