Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Ben Kaduk's HTTP/3 Comment 5 #4780

Closed
LPardue opened this issue Jan 20, 2021 · 0 comments · Fixed by #4810
Closed

Ben Kaduk's HTTP/3 Comment 5 #4780

LPardue opened this issue Jan 20, 2021 · 0 comments · Fixed by #4810
Labels
-http editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. iesg An issue raised during IESG review.
Milestone

Comments

@LPardue
Copy link
Member

LPardue commented Jan 20, 2021

@kaduk said

Section 10.5.2

There is some good discussion in [HTTP-SEMANTICS] about the risk of
CONNECT being used as an arbitrary tunnel, that is probably worth
referencing from here.

The CONNECT method can be used to create disproportionate load on a
proxy, since stream creation is relatively inexpensive when compared
to the creation and maintenance of a TCP connection. A proxy might
also maintain some resources for a TCP connection beyond the closing
of the stream that carries the CONNECT request, since the outgoing
TCP connection remains in the TIME_WAIT state. Therefore, a proxy
cannot rely on QUIC stream limits alone to control the resources
consumed by CONNECT requests.

I'm not sure how well this last sentence translates from HTTP/2 to
HTTP/3 -- in HTTP/2 the limit is on the number of concurrent streams,
but QUIC gives a hard cap on the absolute stream number, so IIUC an
endpoint could refuse to allow new streams until TCP state had quiesced.
(Of course, this would also prevent any new HTTP requests from being
sent...)

@LPardue LPardue added -http iesg An issue raised during IESG review. labels Jan 20, 2021
@LPardue LPardue added this to the http-iesg milestone Jan 20, 2021
@LPardue LPardue added this to Triage in Late Stage Processing via automation Jan 20, 2021
@larseggert larseggert added the editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. label Jan 26, 2021
@project-bot project-bot bot moved this from Triage to Editorial Issues in Late Stage Processing Jan 26, 2021
Late Stage Processing automation moved this from Editorial Issues to Issue Handled Jan 26, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-http editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. iesg An issue raised during IESG review.
Projects
Late Stage Processing
  
Issue Handled
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants