Clarify some handling about extension frame and unknown frame on HTTP/2

蕭雋涵 <chhsiao90@gmail.com> Sat, 21 January 2017 04:06 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 49D9A129784 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:06:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 T1fttq91lgoo for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:06:54 -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 E2D0F12973A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:06:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cUmtU-0002Bc-Sv for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 21 Jan 2017 04:03:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 04:03:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cUmtU-0002Bc-Sv@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 <chhsiao90@gmail.com>) id 1cUmtQ-0002AS-1h for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 21 Jan 2017 04:03:08 +0000
Received: from mail-qt0-f182.google.com ([209.85.216.182]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <chhsiao90@gmail.com>) id 1cUmtJ-0007iy-KK for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 21 Jan 2017 04:03:02 +0000
Received: by mail-qt0-f182.google.com with SMTP id x49so62769465qtc.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:02:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=RClKtWsd4Lfh6eJ6F8VXlj1jfuOhE/tKYdfccoY0ckc=; b=RpkmW8uBuUCyIG4cLY1mubT/MERbzzstK4YhKJsgFkyu4dogU+e4qoEnSjp4fIkjqx 34fxL4+USxMBTVBhXPCY2tDai1YgrHqrHALmVlIKtlwPNirDVQtKU+MkqmivCKY2wlqQ m5nqxOcxaFXMcDBqKkuSnQh5alpkKzFJ9OqYweZFegc8nXDRRMzESwyTl/LQI5NI/Q3e es9m16yPQwucp8RTjXU/zUFrZuFXEBUAAKgpq4op7i3otK087MHM9Rgr3cr4CHvfTtPZ Df36h8RtWe3XkY4/EyJYa2xww77injyqqEvQZaLpd8dkfmNp1/+Qmn8lzmYkdiOBMlpA cWyQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=RClKtWsd4Lfh6eJ6F8VXlj1jfuOhE/tKYdfccoY0ckc=; b=PQkSdsyi+HqCtEfNmDvQbYpeVubjgWUGzz4uuxyHyGsSjbRxIUdzYN1g+M872+3zrW bgWjUQxjds4q4ep46mcxO+q7SKfhMp3DJrwG0o2NVlDVA979ry9pwMBWUJ72aVn2oav6 9a9vqSoiBL3yZBhTP6Zp+qN8UchI/KnJOSryVZPd4dLKNX3l9ysHHSbMg0vztP7/65kT a/UMJXlq3FkQPZTj/4EAhEndPzQHRw9b/HDjwiSiekTttUAd9U4zBmtDeTY2DxJ+FFX6 4I/nnKeo85DYBgxlIS0VjAeEg267yiW8QjSWdIhQergGGp7Bdw284yWBIdUcQJv/Yiz+ 8nnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXI4jkJZmQ1g8QRZQk6lsp3u3JpLrZBsIc0u9x7ZdhmKIRhXH5obLl0POCyzb2JOoZD44zwOEf9m4zursg==
X-Received: by 10.237.53.236 with SMTP id d41mr15909628qte.135.1484971354877; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:02:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.170.77 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:02:34 -0800 (PST)
From: =?UTF-8?B?6JWt6ZuL5ra1?= <chhsiao90@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 12:02:34 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJ8AU98EXyOzg2a6Oj+7hk=Dysqse_zhunjpcoCU-FO9djjDqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c111e41bf6d5054692d663
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.216.182; envelope-from=chhsiao90@gmail.com; helo=mail-qt0-f182.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cUmtJ-0007iy-KK 125fad1581d912e8de54e684ec1d7b4f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Clarify some handling about extension frame and unknown frame on HTTP/2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAJ8AU98EXyOzg2a6Oj+7hk=Dysqse_zhunjpcoCU-FO9djjDqw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33350
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>

It's related to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-5.5 Extending
HTTP/2 and a test case for it
https://github.com/summerwind/h2spec/blob/master/5_5.go#L75-L102

The fourth paragraph said

> Implementations MUST ignore unknown or unsupported values in all
> extensible protocol elements. Implementations MUST discard frames
> that have unknown or unsupported types.


and it also said

> extension frames that appear in the middle of a header block are not
> permitted;
> these MUST be treated as a connection error of type PROTOCOL_ERROR.


So when one end point received one unknown frame in the middle of header
block,
I'm not sure what's the correct way to handle the frame with following two
options.
- the end point should drop the frame without any error
- the end point should close the connection with protocol error.

There is also one paragraph related to this that support the first option.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-5.1
at second from the last paragraph

> In the absence of more specific guidance elsewhere in this document,
> implementations SHOULD treat the receipt of a frame that is not
> expressly permitted in the description of a state as a connection
> error of type PROTOCOL_ERROR. Note that PRIORITY can
> be sent and received in any stream state. Frames of unknown types
> are ignored.

That said frames of unknown types should ignore and not treat as protocol
error.

So I think each the option make sense to me, and want to clarify for which
would be the best option.

Thanks