tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs
tahoe-lafs
/
tahoe-lafs
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests 23 Packages Projects Releases 1 Wiki Activity

discuss decision to use query args

This commit is contained in:
Jean-Paul Calderone 2018-05-29 10:52:37 -04:00
parent 3d3c3d2eb4
commit 4e10f7971a
1 changed files with 23 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

23
docs/proposed/http-storage-node-protocol.rst
View File

@ -322,6 +322,20 @@ For example::
7: ["baz", "quux"]
}
Discussion
``````````
Offset and size of the requested data are specified here as query arguments.
Instead, this information could be present in a ``Range`` header in the request.
This is the more obvious choice and leverages an HTTP feature built for exactly this use-case.
However, HTTP requires that the ``Content-Type`` of the response to "range requests" be ``multipart/...``.
The ``multipart`` major type brings along string sentinel delimiting as a means to frame the different response parts.
There are many drawbacks to this framing technique:
1. It is resource-intensive to generate.
2. It is resource-intensive to parse.
3. It is complex to parse safely [#]_ [#]_ [#]_ [#]_.
Mutable
-------
@ -453,3 +467,12 @@ Just like the immutable version.
that provides an unambiguous (if obscure) signal about which protocol to use.
Or a different scheme could be adopted
(``[x-]pb+http``, ``x-tahoe+http``, ``x-gbs`` come to mind).
.. [#]
https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2017-5638/
.. [#]
https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2018-1272
.. [#]
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-5124
.. [#]
https://efail.de/