Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Some correctness issues in the HTTP/3 drafts are stream errors, not connection errors (#2511)

Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com> Sat, 09 March 2019 14:34 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 99D66127598 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 06:34:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.597 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_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 IzEUlZi3J_p4 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 06:34:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C393126E5C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 06:34:33 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 06:34:32 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1552142072; bh=m7kRb/JZomLbJ2IBzB8hmitfBWhbfLfcfuR30cPJ9n4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ZyKUIALi3u1JAsfKyeY0InPZbqOSWaPpiMa79aia25MVVZvShcpval7IUiU3tVcJX Gqk7zRPjyB0dzy9XAXQXUdmhFWwvC+e4XR/6eZ3rW4zvnJPMU/zLt/hc9vixXZqSnD TP6GaMwH0YZuJ3chUdfUAl3wvnVBRdSbIyjZ4ly0=
From: Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab35259a5e9035a1dd822a5bd809af63c439c5b43292cf00000001189b90f892a169ce18fa336c@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2511/471182925@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2511@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2511@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Some correctness issues in the HTTP/3 drafts are stream errors, not connection errors (#2511)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c83cef867588_6bbf3ff64e8d45bc4992d3"; 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/Coz4S44dY_7hYWQRZGQKGGBH4VA>
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: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 14:34:36 -0000

Happy to spin off another issue.

> SETTINGS_MAX_HEADER_LIST_SIZE (0x6):  The default value is unlimited.
      See Section 5.1.1 for usage.

Is the intent here "unlimited, but not really and I may reject at any time without sharing my limit". How is a peer that broke the rule expected to recover from such an error?

-- 
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/2511#issuecomment-471182925