Re: H2: Should there be a limit to tolerance ?
"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Fri, 17 February 2017 23:04 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 7EFDE1296F6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:04:00 -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 W7qgKR2nonTe for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:03:59 -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 EE73B129661 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:03:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cerX2-0001GB-En for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 23:01:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 23:01:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cerX2-0001GB-En@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 <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1cerWx-0001EJ-ON for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 23:01:35 +0000
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk ([130.225.244.222]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1cerWr-0007Z9-CW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 23:01:30 +0000
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.55.3]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CAA27407; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 23:01:06 +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 v1HN15mM051427; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 23:01:05 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
cc: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In-reply-to: <CABkgnnVuWHQkpcu3yxAxisxziGqMmJ_vKVStUn-1UdbBKak0HQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <51425.1487372465.1@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 23:01:05 +0000
Message-ID: <51426.1487372465@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=-1.405, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cerWr-0007Z9-CW 0ebb9364477ec1d27d71332cca4ea52b
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/51426.1487372465@critter.freebsd.dk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33582
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 <CABkgnnVuWHQkpcu3yxAxisxziGqMmJ_vKVStUn-1UdbBKak0HQ@mail.gmail.com>, Martin Thomson writes: >> 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 ? > >See http://httpwg.org/specs/rfc7540.html#dos Yes, I've seen that. 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. -- 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