Re: [rtcweb] #13: Transport of DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Fri, 19 April 2013 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A739A21F9593 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001]
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 2AtoTr7A-5uM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA1D21F9590 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-98-111-140-34.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([98.111.140.34]:2416 helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1UTENm-000F9S-A4 for rtcweb@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:41:54 -0500
Message-ID: <5171734E.3050300@jesup.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:39:42 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <066.3120a55540cacaa74ee5fda0b5273a48@trac.tools.ietf.org> <516CE3EC.2050804@jesup.org> <CABkgnnVaTOLa-hs7AtEgaTk7eq00bEkCY+_8L96Y8pooqybBxA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFgxLT3-1HehKbg5byzifFi4Obe3XW9G4sbWRbnU+Hi1A@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXr85LZyJiSF+ok2KMS_xQnS0CE4VBq4PvEhBBscn2QZQ@mail.gmail.com> <516F1AF9.2080301@alvestrand.no> <CABkgnnVtUjk4jSDVioxQnrt-b69Hx0nZLefs7tpEzETSmLXeNA@mail.gmail.com> <516F9A5A.6080402@alvestrand.no> <CABkgnnWrAMnm5fTWCNA1jqC_8Js0a6ewfSkvni4xg0E6rXdCtA@mail.gmail.com> <5170247F.4090908@alvestrand.no> <CABkgnnXU4HeJT-QwDcJ5NTvr72gZXxXi5zHFkQjJS__UXqzvtQ@mail.gmail.com> <206CB075-6754-4578-B623-866E410DACCC@lurchi.franken.de> <CABkgnnUCXUH+0a+F1LVQVrtL=Q65HGgsdT-oBBF++zSVR4OhWw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUCXUH+0a+F1LVQVrtL=Q65HGgsdT-oBBF++zSVR4OhWw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] #13: Transport of DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:41:55 -0000

Since we send the Open reliably, barring active attempts to game the 
system with a non-browser, the Open *will* eventually get through unless 
you have 100% (or virtually so) packet loss (and in that case, nothing 
useful, including an error response, is getting through anyways).  So I 
honestly feel it's ok to just buffer all incoming packets while waiting 
for the Open.

No one is going to get a gigabyte of data in without an Open...  A 
non-browser could fake up a session and start sending data without ever 
sending an Open... but flushing the data doesn't actually help you 
against that sort of active DOS (they can just start again, they can 
spread it across thousands of channels, etc, etc), and there are FAR 
better DOS methods - all this would do is burn some CPU and some memory.

-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org