Re: H2: Should there be a limit to tolerance ?
"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Fri, 17 February 2017 11:20 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 20A77129963 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:20:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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
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 t0rSxhkgpkfJ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:20:15 -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 ED845129995 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:20:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cegXp-0004fP-07 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:17:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:17:44 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cegXp-0004fP-07@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1cegXj-0004ds-PQ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:17:39 +0000
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk ([130.225.244.222]) by titan.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1cegXd-0003oK-O2 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:17:34 +0000
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.55.3]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF82273F4; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:17:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v1HBH9xL098900; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:17:09 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
In-reply-to: <D199BE90-58D7-4E1B-A223-82A7D40651DF@greenbytes.de>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <90502.1487325120@critter.freebsd.dk> <D199BE90-58D7-4E1B-A223-82A7D40651DF@greenbytes.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <98898.1487330229.1@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:17:09 +0000
Message-ID: <98899.1487330229@critter.freebsd.dk>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=130.225.244.222; envelope-from=phk@phk.freebsd.dk; helo=phk.freebsd.dk
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.407, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cegXd-0003oK-O2 5e0e57fb742526a40984500d2146745d
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/98899.1487330229@critter.freebsd.dk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33573
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>
-------- 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 ? -- 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.
- H2: Should there be a limit to tolerance ? Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: H2: Should there be a limit to tolerance ? Stefan Eissing
- Re: H2: Should there be a limit to tolerance ? Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: H2: Should there be a limit to tolerance ? Stefan Eissing
- Re: H2: Should there be a limit to tolerance ? Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: H2: Should there be a limit to tolerance ? Martin Thomson
- Re: H2: Should there be a limit to tolerance ? Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: H2: Should there be a limit to tolerance ? Martin Thomson
- Re: H2: Should there be a limit to tolerance ? Poul-Henning Kamp