Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?) from Martin Thomson on 2014-07-11 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from July to September 2014)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:38:35 -0700
To: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUeH-nVXmsC0GYd=UO6aSj+cbWk4a=weeBUyW50quVgdA@mail.gmail.com>

On 11 July 2014 11:35, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com> wrote:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014JulSep/0760.html
>
> Ok in that case, Roberto’s analysis does not prove what you say it does.

I'm pretty sure that it does.

This point:
> The current design handles this fairly well, at most one set of headers can
> be incomplete at any point in time (sending a large number of incomplete
> headers and keeping most of them incomplete most of the time is an
> excellent attack vector, which the design currently precludes).

Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 18:39:05 UTC