Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ranger_danger 334 days ago
it's a good thing all RFCs are 100% specified with no ambiguities.

EDIT: Sorry I dropped my /s. I was only trying to say that unfortunately not all RFCs are sufficiently specified... and that I think saying "good thing we have RFCs" should not imply they will all be sufficiently specified, which is how I interpreted their comment... and didn't feel like typing all this out, but I guess it was necessary anyway.
1 comments
necovek 334 days ago
That's a very weird take as a reply on a bit that is sufficiently specified.
link
ranger_danger 334 days ago
Sorry, what I was implying is that "It’s a good thing we have RFCs" doesn't mean that they ARE always sufficiently specified... even if this one is.
link
necovek 334 days ago
I understand that: the problem is that in this example, it is, so the problem is obviously somewhere else — that's what we should explore.

Is it just that the RFC has not been read properly? Maybe, but even if it was, I do not think having precisely defined behaviour in RFCs is sufficient: real world implementations have to be more flexible due to other buggy implementations they interact with.

link
pixl97 334 days ago
I mean, I was pointing out one in a chain of security failures reverse proxies have had. I could probably point out 20-30 other ones that have cropped up. Adding the binary complexity to H2 has really increased the number of these coming.
link