Re: handling bad priority parameters
Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Sat, 23 August 2014 01:57 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B051A7009 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 pwp8fvvVwFdF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C93DA1A7007 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XL0Wm-00031M-AG for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:54:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:54:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XL0Wm-00031M-AG@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1XL0WK-0002y0-D8 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:53:32 +0000
Received: from mail-qg0-f47.google.com ([209.85.192.47]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1XL0WH-0005RI-SN for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:53:32 +0000
Received: by mail-qg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id i50so10832536qgf.20 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=GxiaJPXB72v+HDifJls6TSKMhqKoeY2fA1+CmeL9QVo=; b=iJfLCLVX1P03ALDGzKjmOCoBPdgLFWZLnmgnDHLK9kYpjI7gEB2AVOcX+QEqRLC9Rd j+hNS6lAbAHlXhoZu0bdrBRc2Vbo3pgHBX3+yee+uKrBkPwprpo9fGPmwTPRBCZZeWDN C7G+rbmxy6EL+C8HCLP2MHvDVOU4+fBlKuxOLmUwKDwstPup77G3QreadXdt7dI5BPJW A04ZC6fkVdxtbWm0PklcvJzJK8gSafinMcZG0XsSP/x5oOCd4xIzL0syfuJqxdBdycou iIONFWti3qEnDEcyxGiX6AiptktvDMNwbPI/3ejNWYPQQXQncIUyLo3VDVFByjKY9CMf aHWA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.103.65 with SMTP id j1mr4955487qao.17.1408758784121; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.25.139 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXtteF-HD79XgJY3UTc9YBPbm=YgFwibQhL9X+w+O1T=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACweHNDzN2cQmLp69BsaKMw-B0rgvojJxz3CxsgQi6vcnGkCdw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXtteF-HD79XgJY3UTc9YBPbm=YgFwibQhL9X+w+O1T=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:53:04 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: lHUkmQ0Jq_TRIb74OXbfY0AYV_Y
Message-ID: <CACweHNCrDH6Ehapp5ev7tGOiMzskw9BSzbHaLgk80h8LDtadbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67784ae6e5ae0501423658"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.192.47; envelope-from=phluid61@gmail.com; helo=mail-qg0-f47.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.744, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XL0WH-0005RI-SN 2519952ae8862e6882d59196d1f964d1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: handling bad priority parameters
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CACweHNCrDH6Ehapp5ev7tGOiMzskw9BSzbHaLgk80h8LDtadbw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26718
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 23 August 2014 03:52, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 August 2014 20:30, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote: > > 1. What's the appropriate reaction if a HEADERS or PRIORITY frame > includes > > an invalid stream dependency? i.e. too large, odd when it should be even, > > etc? I can see a case for allowing future IDs into the tree, completely > > ignoring bad priority data, or for throwing a stream error. Which should > it > > be? > > My intent, which I failed to capture, was to say that if you don't > have priority state for the parent stream, the dependent stream > instead is given default priority (that means stream 0, weight 16). > > Understood. I guess it doesn't hurt anyone too much if the tree gets mangled because of a desync. > > 2. What do we do if we receive a trailing HEADERS frame that contains > > priority info? > > I think that we should fix that too. > > > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/commit/620348d708aba641e4e09b0b7abd6960c199a764 > Much better, thanks. -- Matthew Kerwin http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
- handling bad priority parameters Matthew Kerwin
- Re: handling bad priority parameters Martin Thomson
- Re: handling bad priority parameters Matthew Kerwin