IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Design: Rename FRAME_TOO_LARGE to FRAME_SIZE_ERROR

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Wed, 19 June 2013 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97B121F9294 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.406
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nw9Kbtb9DpMf for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C287621F85EB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UpMIK-0006G6-E0 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:35:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:35:44 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UpMIK-0006G6-E0@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1UpMI7-0006Dh-EM for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:35:31 +0000
Received: from mail-ve0-f173.google.com ([209.85.128.173]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1UpMI0-0001hb-FJ for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:35:29 +0000
Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id jw11so4249521veb.4 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JKD7833Z1HY1vYCDtmVG5X78+muYK6V0Hb7Bu7x9Gbk=; b=FHG97UrMkbuVS9Bvfy+xfbSQGyfDYiyU8pHjOpkjDSKO3jLfy5K/crkGfkGGnqDJZM 1TQwZ6G00A2qf6rNBTTua3Qc6+x0dG7zz1V5bljpEj2gsjYagrFAVNQXdAYQCiWVy4kE u43asEA5urKTpLW+af6zHIvK1Xn3k1SeOEwbifwKq3YeJzcf4HweruDGm0L4+yOa1ceI nZGtbp7H5svdrlsP5iVfTJjoItLofrO6KZcsNXjjYHXS82918ATWYd3Y0UF//MJRrxZo 9xwRolSewB/B0WjtcsxehaCBwDQJHK1VFe/I7/siBOJm9SdrEqkrJQzMXf779896eKTY I8Jw==
X-Received: by 10.220.170.72 with SMTP id c8mr971663vcz.14.1371663298716; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.47.8 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYgKJwhQGsyUyJzcaqy4C-iETsvqb9yPNax5JSixCNCu=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7Rbe9GEkRvoU6yYpiNjrShc32PeoB64fNaTrP6M4Uco-xRw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNr_a3y7Aq8=Q77JYx=iJGwaK==wQWj5JVi9mMdqG5KJug@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1306190738140.31315@egate.xpasc.com> <CA+pLO_jVAdz3XNsfUSW4L0a_dB4YSnaNA+G8QA9h0rS=b74s5w@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNf7mZC3KMD5qYAPA8rAE+Q6fYM_xAEUtxEZQ0jSLGtAMw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_j-4X+NCO7LhmPR4iuUNMRyTuq-EezEs_iPmeuJ7JakBQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXpAHVTHRALduELri5HqF77Jp6P7TGF-Uo2rhg+ysftJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYgKJwhQGsyUyJzcaqy4C-iETsvqb9yPNax5JSixCNCu=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:34:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfNJsC9LpxwQW5YyUYxf1jOpKS94AqV-aMrqZj7O_u1_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.128.173; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ve0-f173.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.695, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UpMI0-0001hb-FJ f94da15f80e3170d9016772937e5ebd9
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design: Rename FRAME_TOO_LARGE to FRAME_SIZE_ERROR
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7RbfNJsC9LpxwQW5YyUYxf1jOpKS94AqV-aMrqZj7O_u1_A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18286
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

+1... overloading PROTOCOL_ERROR is very very bad.

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 19 June 2013 09:32, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
>> > 1 byte per data frame is completely legal at both the framing layer and
>> > the
>> > application layer. I believe the only illustrating examples here are
>> > something like sending a 7 byte PING frame or a 3 byte WINDOW_UPDATE
>> > frame.
>> > You have received the entire frame, it is just malformed.
>>
>> So, I have a question:  is there an actionable difference between
>> FRAME_SIZE_ERROR and PROTOCOL_ERROR.  Noting that neither RST_STREAM,
>> nor GOAWAY, have a way to indicate which frame was in error, there
>> isn't much that is actionable in either case.  I believe that the
>> action in both cases is the same: go and debug your stack.
>
>
> Actionable difference: it tells you what part of your stack to debug.
> PROTOCOL_ERROR is terrible :( Everytime we generate a PROTOCOL_ERROR, we
> have felt we wanted to add a debug string (that opaque byte sequence we
> discussed earlier) so we could figure out what was wrong.
>
>>
>>
>> That leads me to conclude that this is error code proliferation for no
>> good reason.
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email