Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Replace HTTP_MALFORMED_FRAME error code (#2662)

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for this analysis it does really clarify your position. I think there are two independent discussion points here:

1) should error codes be grouped in a logical order by their intended use?
2) should error codes align with or avoid HTTP/2 where possible?

For (1), I'm not against adopting your suggested order but keen to hear some other opinions here.

(2) I think is a bigger issue: 

> While I can see the desire to assign codepoints that overlap with HTTP/2, I am not sure if that's a good idea. Not only the error codes are different between H2 and H3, some H2 error codes map to QUIC transport-level errors. Considering the fact that there cannot be a one-to-one mapping, I'm afraid having overlap might backfire against us; it just creates an incentive to pass-through the error codes between different versions of the protocol.

Do you think the incentive grows with increasing number of aligned points? A sledgehammer of a disincentive is to shift these to avoid HTTP/2 completely; e.g. shift by 0x20, 0x50 or 0x100. Note that QPACK codes already start at 0x200

-- 
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/2662#issuecomment-507625776