Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Forwarding upstream errors, and the implications (#3300)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Tue, 14 January 2020 15:33 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 06B77120826 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 07:33:46 -0800 (PST)
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 o5bSR4pXaPzo for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 07:33:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-6.smtp.github.com (out-6.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90C43120817 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 07:33:35 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 07:33:34 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1579016014; bh=r512tF6INLh2x8mX3yeQmYGJMWX3mnu1opbs3X/2Tos=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=RfTnhFPm8Cb6ys+ZQWV03fGKAaGJQMO4FK7EzgDnfhq3FKGQKYO/hEPIPDotqIDIy WNuNdIfh8V3wZUoaxC02f/q6eyypptfO3FoVu/dPW30HPQn6NWtRbzGvF1H/lu9uwf IR3ubyFyQrbxnIffRdzUJ3k4WObxFskqZ+HN/ztM=
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZTS2ZO4OGC4EUBCLN4FMI45EVBNHHCABYU5A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3300/574231598@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3300@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3300@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Forwarding upstream errors, and the implications (#3300)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e1ddf4ed120f_27773fb4a58cd9641766e1"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/9msRAXHKeoIUa3dmq4QCxAOjIhA>
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: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 15:33:46 -0000

I agree that these are separate problems; for the first problem, I'm strongly inclined toward the status quo.  If you want to ensure delivery of partial content, there is a workaround; for the default case, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" seems like a reasonable point in the design space.

I'm willing to add cautionary text around the promotion permission, but I think an outright prohibition is both unwise and unenforceable.  Implementers will do what they will do, and when there's garbage coming from the peer, it's a totally sensible design to close aggressively.

Frankly, I'd say CDNs shouldn't be shuffling raw frames anyway; they should be shuttling content, at the very least, and mostly have to anyway for HPACK/QPACK to work (unless everything is literal).  At that point, we're really only talking about malformed headers.

-- 
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/3300#issuecomment-574231598