822789 - spdy persistent cwnd setting

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(mozilla.org :: Project Review, task)

Description

[Patrick McManus [:mcmanus]]

Initial Questions:

Project/Feature Name: spdy persistent cwnd setting
Tracking  ID:822745
Description:
seeking technical privacy review

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=822745#c0
http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-protocol/spdy-protocol-draft3#TOC-2.6.4-SETTINGS
Additional Information:

Urgency: 2-4 weeks
Key Initiative: Firefox Desktop
Release Date: 
Project Status: development
Mozilla Data: Yes
New or Change: Existing
Mozilla Project: none
Mozilla Related: firefox all 
Separate Party: No

Comment 1

[Curtis Koenig [:curtisk-use curtis.koenig+bzATgmail.com]]]

This should not be invalid, the project review stays open for the technical privacy review.

Comment 2

[Tom Lowenthal]

Alert: drive-by policy review in progress!

I know that this doesn't persist across sessions. Still, I see the value in letting a user manually choose to clear it, especially as an additional thing being deleted when a user chooses to clear a bunch of info at once. Might that be in scope, or am I misunderstanding the situation?

Comment 3

[Patrick McManus [:mcmanus]]

(In reply to Tom Lowenthal [:StrangeCharm] from comment #2)
> Alert: drive-by policy review in progress!
> 
> I know that this doesn't persist across sessions. Still, I see the value in
> letting a user manually choose to clear it, especially as an additional
> thing being deleted when a user chooses to clear a bunch of info at once.
> Might that be in scope, or am I misunderstanding the situation?

sure it could be in scope if the limited amount of data justified it.

Basically I think it lets 7 bits of the server's choice be more reliably correlated across different http transactions in the same browser session. But of course right now those transactions might all be carried on the same tcp session (and therefore correlated to the same degree) anyhow and we don't give the user any contract into how the decision on when to reuse a connection vs make a new one is made.

Comment 4

[Patrick McManus [:mcmanus]]

how are we doing getting this scheduled?

Comment 5

[Tom Lowenthal]

This bug says that it's looking for a technical privacy followup, which shouldn't start until we've had the normative privacy review. However, its component makes it look like it's a general project-review meta-bug, which blocks the actual implementation (bug 822745), and depends on blocked by the technical review (bug 822790).

I'm going to open a normative review bug blocking both this and the technical review. Sorry for the mix-up! Also: is there any reason why this bug should be MoCo-confidential rather than open? Patrick, if you don't see any reason why it should be secret, could you open this bug up please?