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

Mike Bishop <> Tue, 14 January 2020 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B77120826 for <>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 07:33:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o5bSR4pXaPzo for <>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 07:33:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90C43120817 for <>; 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;; 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 <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3300/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
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
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: 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: