IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Permissible states for extension frames #591

Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> Wed, 20 August 2014 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F5011A0B72 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 13:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4DyCfrcvftDF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 13:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FE131A0395 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 13:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XKCkm-0005Sq-Go for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:45:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:45:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XKCkm-0005Sq-Go@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1XKCkW-00034U-1c for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:44:52 +0000
Received: from mail-bn1blp0182.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([207.46.163.182] helo=na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1XKCkU-0008QT-V2 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:44:52 +0000
Received: from BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.230.24) by BL2PR03MB131.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.230.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1010.18; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:44:22 +0000
Received: from BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.9.11]) by BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.9.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1010.016; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:44:23 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: Permissible states for extension frames #591
Thread-Index: AQHPtbDEWW+Qmv+1LECXxg4zS/qOhZvaAv/Q
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:44:23 +0000
Message-ID: <5dfde0949d4449a48cae2fff60020a12@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CABkgnnVgnJSmJW2B4nJ8Vb-Nwi3EF2pra7D_m8uqZfQ8H1a2eA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVgnJSmJW2B4nJ8Vb-Nwi3EF2pra7D_m8uqZfQ8H1a2eA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [131.107.192.233]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-o365ent-eop-header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY)
x-forefront-prvs: 03094A4065
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(13464003)(199003)(377454003)(189002)(46102001)(76482001)(107886001)(74316001)(99286002)(76176999)(87936001)(95666004)(33646002)(83072002)(20776003)(77982001)(76576001)(50986999)(85852003)(77096002)(105586002)(107046002)(81542001)(31966008)(21056001)(15975445006)(4396001)(99396002)(83322001)(86612001)(19580395003)(74662001)(66066001)(19580405001)(81342001)(64706001)(79102001)(74502001)(85306004)(86362001)(106356001)(92566001)(54356999)(2656002)(108616004)(80022001)(106116001)(101416001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR03MB131; H:BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=207.46.163.182; envelope-from=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com; helo=na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.966, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XKCkU-0008QT-V2 c57f4b8874626be9deaa46fc74b3f157
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Permissible states for extension frames #591
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5dfde0949d4449a48cae2fff60020a12@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26682
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

We're okay with the current text.  An extension will specify in what states it's valid to send, so this only applies to unknown extensions on receive.  Those will be discarded anyway -- anything beyond that will complicate implementations unnecessarily.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 3:03 PM
To: HTTP Working Group
Subject: Permissible states for extension frames #591

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.

A tighter scope, like just "open" and the sending-permitted "half-closed" variant, would be even easier to enact, but might reduce the utility of extension frames.

-- https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/591

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status