Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] http3: Are reserved and non-core frames allowed before SETTINGS? (#2693)

Kazuho Oku <> Sun, 12 May 2019 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5551C1201EF for <>; Sun, 12 May 2019 15:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.463
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.463 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_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, 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 BVulMmV7bEZR for <>; Sun, 12 May 2019 15:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CAF11201E9 for <>; Sun, 12 May 2019 15:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 15:00:53 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1557698453; bh=S2tTR0MsS8thqdlZ515ae2oedGndTsvBZqIAVzilH48=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=tW+5abQRoMGXKGhvUQkJ4dCunj/3MN57nDSqMEgQkr7KfexgqpVTBD9oYL0Ecabhn 8rG/4lWOY/kuo34s/9815+9AhB68RuIVezpKPdp0XtiVsrwsYitggCza+TsmoE4ks0 dbOQwa7Tp/gcfKqo04jK2PP091oI+XwEWkJRlaT0=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2693/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] http3: Are reserved and non-core frames allowed before SETTINGS? (#2693)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cd897958ce87_28703fe6f2ccd968161222"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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: Sun, 12 May 2019 22:00:57 -0000

My preference goes to retaining the requirement as-is. This is the way H2 has worked, and I am not sure if there is a practical reason to change.

FWIW, we have a similar requirement for PRIORITY frame too, which I'm also fine with: _A PRIORITY frame received after other frames on a request stream MUST be treated as a connection error of type HTTP_UNEXPECTED_FRAME_ ([section 4.2.3](

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