IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> Fri, 17 February 2017 11:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44792129990 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:24:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=greenbytes.de header.b=rXdllWAy; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=greenbytes.de header.b=hnAcRvVf
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 Jqqnt4mXF1re for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:24:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE74C1298AA for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:24:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cegc2-0006rw-QA for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:22:06 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:22:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cegc2-0006rw-QA@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>) id 1cegbz-0006rB-Lj for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:22:03 +0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de ([5.10.171.186]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>) id 1cegbt-0000Zi-2P for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:21:58 +0000
Received: by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix, from userid 117) id 6BB0C15A1057; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:21:29 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=greenbytes.de; s=mail; t=1487330489; bh=3PIcNP5eoPE+wY5qSahmz+IiqEtBJ5lnY+D7fHMWzRU=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=rXdllWAyXHmYNUWQN0B/0IxzXRgjq7JevTKiHsoHDrm4W356ixKPtGfOg40S6AEFa EqYO4cL+RX02Hcr/ZxbVAhH50FypBD9qcFl8esalwe9Y3pjZJFy48tfMukxfv1bpj9 I6BTXX9riNR+sSMovTBL80L5Ujrl40ePH6hjlFUU=
Received: from [192.168.1.150] (unknown [192.168.1.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E9FE915A1057; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:21:28 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=greenbytes.de; s=mail; t=1487330488; bh=3PIcNP5eoPE+wY5qSahmz+IiqEtBJ5lnY+D7fHMWzRU=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=hnAcRvVfawhyCD1IHz3nOZKXJn4FzQCx3dd7l0MLIZTE4CNiiVswK7JB85TRkYjR0 /qpIdbEYbXYrJoQLSjiI1HVGoKCQtPf4Ho4pm0FviASp9CKCygljuSgee6VyoL5BSR 3XOzZOF30B20fjsJxOobMAfrADzw4tqrJp1Xowtc=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
In-Reply-To: <98899.1487330229@critter.freebsd.dk>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:21:44 +0100
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <59877D7F-DD52-4158-A44E-EFA5DF0A2F62@greenbytes.de>
References: <90502.1487325120@critter.freebsd.dk> <D199BE90-58D7-4E1B-A223-82A7D40651DF@greenbytes.de> <98899.1487330229@critter.freebsd.dk>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.10.171.186; envelope-from=stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de; helo=mail.greenbytes.de
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.536, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cegbt-0000Zi-2P cf0bb033b49972b363c3cc75ed5cd9cc
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: H2: Should there be a limit to tolerance ?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/59877D7F-DD52-4158-A44E-EFA5DF0A2F62@greenbytes.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33574
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>

> 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 Münster
www.greenbytes.de

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email