Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remap STOPPING to something other than zero (#1804)

Mike Bishop <> Thu, 27 September 2018 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1CB0130EF7 for <>; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.455
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.456, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DOyIiLL_NNkn for <>; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A839130E30 for <>; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:59:16 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1538071156; bh=/UwDbGhFbqUzlILpdrnQ/oxG6YcGU3zSA4b1SQ7wfns=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=EPFI6nEAQgE7eit0wX8STzuNmYyyBsNkmjG7XzPNhuFt0829vWRUXJd4OWMtCSHOv R/JHEGBq3MRXzjwEr/yEscBbbzbDyQRlgmwvMpP8Mj0PuQdzIm84t68/o1/B0Svd7F pXtB/RsrCtSu4hA9riC3REJEM3DG0DlM6jNQaMFw=
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1804/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remap STOPPING to something other than zero (#1804)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bad1a748a5b7_3ff83f82ddad45b829705c"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:59:20 -0000

The value in having a STOPPING error code is understanding the source.  Because this is a transport feature, STOPPING permits the recipient to understand that the stream is being aborted because it sent a STOP_SENDING (i.e. its own action), not because the peer encountered a fatal error during the intervening RTT.  From another viewpoint, the "source" of the RST is the remote transport, not the remote application.

(I would envision STOP_SENDING surfacing to the remote API as a failure to write because the RST_STREAM has already been sent, not as a signal to which the application responds by triggering a RST_STREAM.)

I don't feel strongly opposed to having, say, a STOP_COMPLETE frame, but it would have identical practical effect to RST_STREAM.  That feels like a cosmetic change, and I'm not sure the difference is critical.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: