Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Security Considerations text for a memory limit (#3004)

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 12:49:26 -0700

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3004

-- Commit Summary --

  * Security Considerations text for a memory limit

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-qpack.md (7)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3004.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3004.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3004

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 14:22:42 -0700

ianswett commented on this pull request.

> @@ -1126,6 +1126,13 @@ HTTP_QPACK_DECODER_STREAM_ERROR (0x202):
 
 TBD.
 
+While the negotiated limit on the dynamic table size accounts for much of the
+memory that can be consumed by a QPACK implementation, data which cannot be
+immediately sent due to flow control is not affected by this limit.
+Implementations MUST limit the size of unsent data, especially on the decoder

Does a MUST really make sense here?  I mean, it seems like the implementation's problem if they have an unbounded amount of memory buffered.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3004#pullrequestreview-283268986

---

From: Kazuho Oku <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 20:55:01 -0700

kazuho commented on this pull request.

 TBD.

I think that having a MUST for the decoder stream might make sense (as the peer controls what is to be sent on the decoder stream). OTOH I share the view that having MUST limit + MUST close if exceeded is a bit off for the encoder stream.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3004#discussion_r320562887

---

From: Kazuho Oku <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 20:58:42 -0700

TBD.
 
+While the negotiated limit on the dynamic table size accounts for much of the
+memory that can be consumed by a QPACK implementation, data which cannot be
+immediately sent due to flow control is not affected by this limit.
+Implementations MUST limit the size of unsent data, especially on the decoder
+stream where flexibility to choose what to send is limited.  If this limit is
+exceeded, the connection MUST be terminated.

I am not sure if "MUST terminate if the limit is exceeded" is a good advice, as there could be alternative strategies. For example, an endpoint can stop reading data from the streams, as well as giving the peer new stream ID credit while the amount of unsent data on the QPACK decoder stream is above some threshold.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3004#pullrequestreview-283365279

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 11:03:03 -0700

@MikeBishop pushed 1 commit.

76b6f221757b6adc1966f662454e4f2ed3f856ea  Less normative

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3004/files/f74c7faa455fc367f33988894d15f6b9ebe831ef..76b6f221757b6adc1966f662454e4f2ed3f856ea

---

From: Kazuho Oku <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 17:13:50 -0700

kazuho approved this pull request.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3004#pullrequestreview-283962550

---

From: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 18:46:56 -0700

tatsuhiro-t approved this pull request.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3004#pullrequestreview-283981516

---

From: afrind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:22:20 -0700

Merged #3004 into master.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3004#event-2623872318