IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] clarify that an endpoint cannot block on SETTINGS (#2986)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Fri, 23 August 2019 02:22 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 8732F12013F for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 19:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 cYnkUmitoMyT for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 19:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-11.smtp.github.com (out-11.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33E2312004C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 19:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 19:22:22 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1566526942; bh=YcIE9OOiCRkYg0lbTXzaHYWZaUGpq3JxGUFlrhzETSc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=f+Ee7cb2hciJHe+lwGQHlnM+SycGrsl09bPhBKK/o1AFHKiBgTDbxydCGBtSzGcrt Z0NT5lEh3du16GpAdzMkk/kUG9Ex5YNQScs5r00y10qgj9yq490Wa1UbCSJUFu2sgB UclFFpFNmKtOl3oS+Ucw1Wj2uK1XjdcScluU8N0Y=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7EOYZJRPAMVYDTU653NSAF5EVBNHHBZXMXGI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2986/review/278769930@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2986@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2986@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] clarify that an endpoint cannot block on SETTINGS (#2986)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d5f4dde732bf_30fa3f82b52cd9641367b7"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/0nfpJNFeE4HTWoXhH953stUt5-g>
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: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 02:22:24 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

I'm a little concerned about the standoff this permits, but otherwise, I think that this is a good change.

> @@ -2159,6 +2159,12 @@ the settings identifier space in HTTP/3 is substantially larger (62 bits versus
 16 bits), so many HTTP/3 settings have no equivalent HTTP/2 code point. See
 {{iana-settings}}.
 
+An endpoint SHOULD NOT wait for the peer's settings to arrive before responding
+to other streams, as it cannot assume the peer's settings to arrive in a timely
+manner.  This is because the packet carrying the settings can be lost, or the

The problem here is that if both endpoints wait for settings from a peer, we have a situation where SETTINGS never gets sent.  If both peers decide to wait, then they wait forever.

Sorry, I wasn't clear that this was the concern in my other comment.

-- 
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/2986#pullrequestreview-278769930

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email