Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling?
Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Wed, 11 February 2015 02:36 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ietf.org@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 D61BA1A1B77 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:36:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 z9nkhvsUyBFx for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:36:23 -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 A74D11A1B25 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:36:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YLN6M-0006S8-1e for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:32:30 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:32:30 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YLN6M-0006S8-1e@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1YLN6H-0006RN-1r for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:32:25 +0000
Received: from 121-99-228-82.static.orcon.net.nz ([121.99.228.82] helo=treenet.co.nz) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1YLN6F-0005YQ-UA for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:32:24 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.6] (121-98-145-59.bng1.mdr.orcon.net.nz [121.98.145.59]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96CE8E6FA6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:31:51 +1300 (NZDT)
Message-ID: <54DABF12.70609@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:31:46 +1300
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <CAH_y2NE5Sa625XEec5WXJ7LdjK+h1b4M=Fc-_iGj2ZQKa1q_jg@mail.gmail.com> <5C91DE2C-BC82-4142-B292-815EED3627EC@mnot.net> <54DAA3A4.8060608@treenet.co.nz> <CAH_y2NG0_Y9nnDjLd2Fc_5wBessfy0DOfKBfkH8NiKjyzAiRVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH_y2NG0_Y9nnDjLd2Fc_5wBessfy0DOfKBfkH8NiKjyzAiRVg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=121.99.228.82; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.500, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1YLN6F-0005YQ-UA 12101ebc2ad91660bacb701ba55a98dd
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/54DABF12.70609@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28806
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>
On 11/02/2015 2:27 p.m., Greg Wilkins wrote: > Amos, > > that is a good way of doing it - more or less like an upgrade, but without > the complexity of having to inject the settings frame and HTTP/1 request > into the server. While I hear what Mark says about caution, I really > don't see a great risk here and thus will look at supporting it also. I agree with Mark completely about the 2.0 -> 1.1 transition being dangerous. 1.1 has a scary amount of legacy tolerances and gaps where nastiness can squeeze through. Beyond safety is the other issue of promoting 2.0 at every opportunity while remaining compatible with a deprecated 1.x. Amos
- Invalid HTTP2 preface handling? Greg Wilkins
- Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling? Mark Nottingham
- Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling? Amos Jeffries
- Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling? Greg Wilkins
- Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling? Amos Jeffries
- Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling? Michael Sweet
- Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling? Greg Wilkins
- Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling? Martin Thomson
- Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling? Willy Tarreau
- Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling? Julian Reschke
- Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling? Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling? Mark Nottingham
- Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling? Greg Wilkins