IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/3 Client handling of SERVER_BUSY error code needs to be specified (#2699)

Udip Pant <notifications@github.com> Thu, 23 May 2019 13:10 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 005E2120048 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 06:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K5h0cU9ur4W6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 06:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 546F9120019 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 06:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 06:10:49 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1558617049; bh=s+CS7jcdSNYr3DWBeHbDkfALNprvx+Ql4uAFdDDS2NI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=e4edfM54R4/uMxWgZvL54WMDVrZ+lrV1RbhWQPvoSn9FAUwBYcQqw4nEF/4tWpuYd +Gq76VKESq/Wgca7U0RHFYzxJiGm14oHzwooxOdn8eMvsL/I/ZprByXaViNzAGE9wA OBGQ0iAXUxrWW9GjHYpW3ucZP/LnlIpbUTQxcTjI=
From: Udip Pant <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7VK5J6YUAUMNARFEV26PHFTEVBNHHBU6IQGY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2699/495211676@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2699@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2699@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/3 Client handling of SERVER_BUSY error code needs to be specified (#2699)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ce69bd9903d5_1ef83fe221ccd95c17395b5"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: udippant
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/0WZi_W7VMeM_vj9DTeC5K3JLCOA>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 13:10:54 -0000

Based on the text (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-20#section-5.2.2) my interpretation is that the server can respond with SERVER_BUSY (only) when it receives Initial packet from the client (i.e. during/pre handshake). So any client with implementation of happyeyeball-like race mechanism between QUIC and TCP should fallback to TCP.

Post handshake, the server can either send GO_AWAY or stateless reset depending on the application protocol and circumstances, and client can try to re-establish QUIC connection.

Since this issue is not HTTP3 specific, I agree with @LPardue that HTTP3 is probably not the right place. (Also, what else could client do in this case anyway?). As @ianswett mentioned above, clarifying this in the quic-transport spec would be helpful.

-- 
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/issues/2699#issuecomment-495211676

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status