IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Resetting stream without knowledge (#2850)

Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com> Wed, 26 June 2019 16:52 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 E72931202E1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:52:20 -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 X3OANVZbwxxU for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9BB912003E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:52:17 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1561567937; bh=NUR+JdYVk+MdhHuaaJXo418Fdq19PdR+KkaS6prDdAE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Ex7Qu478qNoPwIjMA+52wT8zfCHQt84ReEdomiwyRtaYvrPdW3rsBOyzPE8HT3uBa P0V+mwXenV9VSqsUZHxBOD585qQFd/xbFWFPAH80bOJo+7Jx65A9lnCc9AMM6G+cJ9 uAKJhAecgjd84q1P9AMIXdNzOjSKk4ct5Le+Kzsg=
From: Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6EGLNQVV465QQOZEV3EDKUDEVBNHHBW6SX34@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2850/505957711@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2850@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2850@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Resetting stream without knowledge (#2850)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d13a2c1d93ee_5cc23fcfbf4cd9601270e9"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: LPardue
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/BQIWo-MJkkSWs5066N0N0RM8Xik>
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, 26 Jun 2019 16:52:21 -0000

So looking at the paragraph in entirety I agree with @MikeBishop :

> RESET_STREAM MUST be instigated by the protocol using QUIC, either
   directly or through the receipt of a STOP_SENDING frame from a peer.
   RESET_STREAM carries an application error code.  Resetting a stream
   without knowledge of the application protocol could cause the
   protocol to enter an unrecoverable state.  Application protocols
   might require certain streams to be reliably delivered in order to
   guarantee consistent state between endpoints.

Is the intention to describe why " RESET_STREAM MUST be instigated by the protocol"? The words following the normative text are a bit wooly/weasely. I think this paragraph slightly falls victim to the problem that you raised on https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2805 but from the other side of the coin. Nowhere else do we use the phrase "protocol using QUIC" - it sounds a bit bcp56(bis).

-- 
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/2850#issuecomment-505957711

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email