Re: Design: Ignored Unknown Frame Types and Intermediaries

Albert Lunde <atlunde@panix.com> Tue, 14 May 2013 13:40 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9327221F8FED for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2013 06:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TxJaT+J+kSyY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2013 06:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2060821F8EA6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2013 06:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UcFSY-0007vC-PD for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 14 May 2013 13:40:06 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 13:40:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UcFSY-0007vC-PD@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <atlunde@panix.com>) id 1UcFSM-0006dJ-EF for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 14 May 2013 13:39:54 +0000
Received: from mailbackend.panix.com ([166.84.1.89]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <atlunde@panix.com>) id 1UcFS7-0006N5-Vr for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 14 May 2013 13:39:46 +0000
Received: from [192.168.15.4] (unknown [184.78.58.209]) by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E49B28A01; Tue, 14 May 2013 09:39:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <51923E87.9040505@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:39:19 -0500
From: Albert Lunde <atlunde@panix.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <CABP7Rbfko48A0yAceDeHfQKR7S6aW7AAAqCZroaZzTScTooOvw@mail.gmail.com> <09C78900-966B-46B0-AB97-1394FD05849A@checkpoint.com> <CAP+FsNe2L2aZbDhM4OiWmh7b7f0HkrVfGwa6aKkD2ohNNKJHxg@mail.gmail.com> <2124BAB0-8FF1-4D6D-BBD8-F042B1EA5F7B@checkpoint.com> <CABP7Rbf+H=WarqFaV0UM5On-3FkYAspkC4OBzh1HE6EpQow94w@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNd3260xnQG8JU3UQkkSwaVhVgwkDPPcR02W_W0q12+HFw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXJRHu_LsD+Fq9dTNi9Sqfmj0GQMBGO9QzZy6DCfxSJAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNdoZNOV2JxHgVHorp94QC0+KGOrYpVdi5FoZ8jAEsGd5g@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7Rbck4xCib9py+AqUHY=SgCoGz+Jw5-yLjzCFhQ_RbpLJQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNcGYVwM3n3Vcttw-H8a3_vCrG5ysH-mTODBhFyioXcK6Q@mail.gmail.com> <DC5B5985-D15C-47EA-90B0-5AABF540BC04@checkpoint.com>
In-Reply-To: <DC5B5985-D15C-47EA-90B0-5AABF540BC04@checkpoint.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=166.84.1.89; envelope-from=atlunde@panix.com; helo=mailbackend.panix.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.596, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.629, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UcFS7-0006N5-Vr c8980d1bc9103c61a00c98da5c5ef504
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design: Ignored Unknown Frame Types and Intermediaries
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51923E87.9040505@panix.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17988
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 5/14/2013 4:46 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> But I agree that we should limit what non-version-changing extensions
> are allowed to do. We should require that if the extension is either
> ignored by the recipient or removed by a middlebox, no harm would be
> done (except the new functionality not working)

It's hard to tell if an extension may be safely ignored at the protocol 
level.  Would there be any use in having a "critical extension" bit, 
indicating an extension frame that must not be silently dropped by 
intermediaries or ignored by the destination server?