Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/3 Client handling of SERVER_BUSY error code needs to be specified (#2699)

Praveen Balasubramanian <notifications@github.com> Wed, 15 May 2019 18:48 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 5D148120175 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2019 11:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.464
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.464 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] 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 HACZWkOKSXg3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2019 11:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B348A120123 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2019 11:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 11:48:22 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1557946102; bh=Ck2jZNjwFuhq19S2TDqR65TgpIdUAvtoUZH2p/lUUDI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=COtIYvbhLEaX08Agq9rxYVvCZdoIV+5AO+vMjoGnbjc9ZZEkv2jSJgJ5az3vKU3dz 3YqFH9o+v+cZO/iBHlwBft6QOgJJ3Pm6K7Ug7AJD+BStmzPJoIi2cVMe6Aj/nOeYZ6 EVtIp++Jwk9ikIdq3ikGZgzGwkXaPl+Q5DalWuQg=
From: Praveen Balasubramanian <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3XZIBLVRVYHXLAPNN25GIXNEVBNHHBU6IQGY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2699/492777701@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2699@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2699@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/3 Client handling of SERVER_BUSY error code needs to be specified (#2699)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cdc5ef654950_68273faf454cd96455091"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: pravb
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/B89lHr1x1mpANQTwZl4MyzrHhaQ>
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: Wed, 15 May 2019 18:48:25 -0000

Yeah Chrome does. I think we should have recommendations about fallback in the spec so we don't end up with wildly different client behaviors making server side and infrastructure behavior complicated. I'd at least consider adding text around QUIC connection failures, GOAWAY and SERVER_BUSY handling and any other transport protocol errors. I think there is reasonable coverage for HTTP/3 errors.

-- 
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/2699#issuecomment-492777701