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

蕭雋涵 <chhsiao90@gmail.com> Sun, 22 January 2017 02:59 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 60389129583 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:59:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.199 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, 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 NAAaZz44t4PH for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:59:24 -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 53608129570 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:59:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cV8Jm-0006gX-6L for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:55:46 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:55:46 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cV8Jm-0006gX-6L@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 1cV8Ji-0006fm-D6 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:55:42 +0000
Received: from mail-pf0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178]) 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 1cV8Jc-0008On-Bb for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:55:37 +0000
Received: by mail-pf0-f178.google.com with SMTP id y143so32035276pfb.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:55:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=bgecup4zOOJ0Rcdr305lw/FUILSm4FZ9dKxRm0iHtDU=; b=mGgu4i1UVZiShkRcZU+BVwdNSBoMCTKpZaxWnaFg31DcXkJyA362teotEcnM8CcbLx xmtXHac1IINbAss+k+J0NUqw1sX5B+w/gtYvenScthPFUuYazhSg2eYVsUCJTdf8jOJt 6WyhSYqGZEF2+70/lA3w/BV3Njd/xNX9KDAN/RrlHr5cXBIH3Wzh00I7jiowmv29JnoA 6s0keBr2/bqGF7EBg4BGyj81CeDG8qmiqPB+QmcJbV5bRgSekJEzMBn69iNDmzP6EhgE tGuJymgpySPaQaX3Xo4eTXX40P7dFGtEvWFlGyx9PM8hC4I+ZvKrqov+Alzhq0bJPCZt 6ofw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=bgecup4zOOJ0Rcdr305lw/FUILSm4FZ9dKxRm0iHtDU=; b=CynJ0dMCgeAZxvHj6aFRPzgwUcT8zZhIVSmqJbvhKSAImUVDrCdGnzfs9IS7ldFaSc AD6k6zAbUeTXl08JpXJ+aRkChpYRHSXladU4vefHimylAeUgSXIVYFuQyPofBd+D1kkq lO2rMPMKkcVxSA0GXBvMYIvgR3zHtKvlrMNcGIvDUS27Dmwm81owE+tJt/ikpW0AH0Ij UPRcplqcGvp2zEA3dTUNJJl2PqTTgDzqs1Rxad4yknmJnpZB3rNFArv28Ry0OBA96UOz QT4UKJZFY7+cOqAWGJc44077shjP0pD2Lw6gOhy7PACkPODkIEawQ6jY/1EKpXg4AgqL VaLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJvjZdCJera8bBv5tqUbDw9BFwuzWwUTJn69d01DWo/C+hut3gb8wH78fggf3DHcw==
X-Received: by 10.98.209.16 with SMTP id z16mr25275705pfg.139.1485053710212; Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:55:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.200.115] (220-134-105-41.HINET-IP.hinet.net. [220.134.105.41]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 18sm26924177pgf.28.2017.01.21.18.55.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:55:09 -0800 (PST)
From: =?utf-8?B?6JWt6ZuL5ra1?= <chhsiao90@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <FB4B96B2-33A7-482A-B4DF-8CBC1E7D8D38@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A65A9CFD-AE9C-4106-83A3-428E8DEE66A5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:55:08 +0800
In-Reply-To: <AE2DAED4-7938-419C-B97B-4759D469214A@lukasa.co.uk>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
To: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
References: <CAJ8AU98EXyOzg2a6Oj+7hk=Dysqse_zhunjpcoCU-FO9djjDqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPyZ6=KXrzUSBrb4S5oN12m2w_ZEk8p+6aqpSv9o6WusP5RqRw@mail.gmail.com> <AE2DAED4-7938-419C-B97B-4759D469214A@lukasa.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.192.178; envelope-from=chhsiao90@gmail.com; helo=mail-pf0-f178.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cV8Jc-0008On-Bb 697b78902be103b7435775d600150f35
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Clarify some handling about extension frame and unknown frame on HTTP/2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/FB4B96B2-33A7-482A-B4DF-8CBC1E7D8D38@gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33353
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>

Hi Cory and Tatshuhiro,

Thanks for your detailed and clear explanation!
So the rule “never contains other frame in header blocks” had the higher priority than "drop unknown frame".


> Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk> 於 2017年1月21日 下午9:50 寫道:
> 
> 
>> On 21 Jan 2017, at 08:22, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com <mailto:tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> ​My understanding is that unknown frame type must be ignored except for those which are received in the middle of header block.   The unknown frame type appearing in the middle of header block must be treated as connection error.
> 
> This is correct. A header block must always be a HEADERS frame, followed by zero or more CONTINUATION frames until one of these frames is marked with the END_HEADERS. If an unknown frame appears in that sequence, that violates the HEADERS rules, and so is a connection error.
> 
> Cory