Re: H2: Should there be a limit to tolerance ?
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Sat, 18 February 2017 10:03 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 1F0A6129405 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 02:03:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.002 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 Sd3VAR_0XgAN for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 02:03:30 -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 139BD126CD8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 02:03:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cf1nx-00071t-6w for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:59:49 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:59:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cf1nx-00071t-6w@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 <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1cf1nq-000711-CY for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:59:42 +0000
Received: from mail-qt0-f172.google.com ([209.85.216.172]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1cf1nj-0008SQ-U6 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:59:37 +0000
Received: by mail-qt0-f172.google.com with SMTP id x49so57898311qtc.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:59:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qOGQXGmAuP8ywyO5QsUZfQxRREvzKrIjhPr5BC2Oxvg=; b=VcvsNddtK3Nkjxz3VXVQI7/bYz6S3kKc8y0ezkeMYAeKAi23WNgDABZaSRRUVI7NEP ZAUsWV4H99HBRLq9Scuolue3vGRkyFp1/hosJY6uRe8rpeLKc2cpq391UXGu8ZTUHo+C oG+C4rE3yCshwiGJDnvhOZsS5Vu7DMLfGeinmcZa1B6oUkG2EhFgM9f3wF/Ba1fq7L1Z CqQD/bu72KwP3fR0+WZeL6j9ECX3HlizGhfVRlJ+Af4ZVHUv1RGWmqvdMypBgo5FrRom KeiGZOVyNsyfVnH2Im/aXRtlKTpo3nPMSKBqy1/GBFsYB3D3H0pihK0ldYW4dX6hKqpY +F8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qOGQXGmAuP8ywyO5QsUZfQxRREvzKrIjhPr5BC2Oxvg=; b=InJWblC+sDGGfyLB2viQjDzOENc1zqSiTmYb64LihAhwiXs1gNVeQ9jSyleMDG7OmC 8Xpyeno4LG5z5CwtyQ+O9EpK8P9IHSODDn9LYd3RUxr8oqI8sV5gmzYcKD0VCmCXr2/r bvXVplrHZT7qEf3tIqPnBRBeXAGX8fuYDKKPDL8gy5ElkPqazkWp+bLUwq3Wqep2ikrR IvoSP7qSMjakT2AQbW53ks+ytXjeMpKXbOcKuIbN5FHuVt/wWBfKLQmg8M1zHJbgbVy4 oUGziJe54TFK053jhtc6ncNq2GwTgxX3bIy/qcGkX8McyyqdOdD6j4iw2AM1eelaziTi +ypA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39n+A98D0Fo9mEvjL8SIZGSvslpT3FZGwkfyu1HcLHCggkJT5LZ24YCTIwT+lIVxYF+yEF5Mwelt/8quGA==
X-Received: by 10.200.57.199 with SMTP id v65mr11513824qte.13.1487411948958; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:59:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.19.112 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:59:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <51426.1487372465@critter.freebsd.dk>
References: <90502.1487325120@critter.freebsd.dk> <D199BE90-58D7-4E1B-A223-82A7D40651DF@greenbytes.de> <98899.1487330229@critter.freebsd.dk> <CABkgnnVuWHQkpcu3yxAxisxziGqMmJ_vKVStUn-1UdbBKak0HQ@mail.gmail.com> <51426.1487372465@critter.freebsd.dk>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 20:59:08 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUObhgeJZOmP4cZMGG1zQt93kXRFOA2NuOVERT2mtDLxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.216.172; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-qt0-f172.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.386, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cf1nj-0008SQ-U6 fde05ab7ce11d282ef3164c191ecfa04
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/CABkgnnUObhgeJZOmP4cZMGG1zQt93kXRFOA2NuOVERT2mtDLxw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33583
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 18 February 2017 at 10:01, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > What I'm asking is if we should try to avoid have N different > critieria for N different implementations or if it makes sense > to try to coordinate some sort of same-ish criteria. I'd caution that releasing actual numbers tends to create an exposure, once someone knows what the limit truly is, they know the limits of the abuse they can perform. I think that was why Roberto was reluctant to pin anything down. Making the limits configurable might help avoid some of that problem, for those of us with less of a closed source viewpoint.
- 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