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

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Fri, 23 August 2019 01:21 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 2484212083D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, 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 tgsbNfPc9IpH for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFB59120829 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:21:24 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1566523284; bh=KrSaXiM/g2vsqBcVoAh59zW/yjprF90xDYIcXnyLZQo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ycI8JgijhK1Hr77E5XLNZCLrm3L09uqBuKbZFtofWzn4V3hrtMgvVP7xp9otWJJ1m osbWevE22n52QJr4gajB4iLBDI7HcNmNGFUEiO3yUKe9xir1m2yWTe9lz5JaW0yHgX 6WhmsrOmJbpUz76JcMXpiODFz0pVMamd2CeZ4EB0=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4TMK3C732KIMLBQ6N3NRZBJEVBNHHBZXMXGI@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/c524136029@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_5d5f3f948d40e_20093fd022ecd95c3305e8"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/AysOGsHoUxb9DH3oFK8fVZSRYBA>
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 01:21:27 -0000

In response to https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/commit/5fadbbbff7a5e566a2c951376be7999aca2c7edb#r34801559 by @martinthomson:
> I don't get this latter part of the sentence. I think that we should mandate, with a "MUST", that endpoints not wait for a peer's SETTINGS frame before sending their own.

I am fine with using a keyword here. Though I'd argue that it does not need to be a MUST if an endpoint can assume that SETTINGS would arrive eventually (assuming that the endpoint would not send MAX_STREAMS or MAX_STREAM_DATA that might allow the peer to prioritize transmission of other streams).

Therefore I've gone with SHOULD NOT, using a less extreme example. To paraphrase, we are essentially forbidding an endpoint behave as described in https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2986/commits/dc7f6041fbae53e06e1875a1df561388e44156b2 (the example that you didn't get).

-- 
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#issuecomment-524136029