IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Conflicting error codes (#4087)

ekr <notifications@github.com> Thu, 10 September 2020 20:07 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 1D8993A0128 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 zR9CeiMrxcoh for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B87903A0113 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-c53a806.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-c53a806.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.45]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A039520042 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1599768473; bh=ctplSzeTtssNZD4UeD8nXogrzj9e4ZzGCBaZsVAYa+8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Y1GO56rxXN1B/CxBUMKGNQtwOYEfZNYhaBEpF858DiHvEuduCuLFyOdUJ4ok02HJZ d7zypXrN1DeqiIc8rLbwLQVnCTJkLgP+ZH4f/QF6Cipg3bbsLfj3D1Fy5WrMtycHQk K2Vz0vCGOAampnL4n5Q3HaFQKMVtD9g2Jijri9FQ=
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:07:52 -0700
From: ekr <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZ3D5DU64WR7GNGDSN5MZUJREVBNHHCTETOJE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4087/690689612@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4087@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4087@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Conflicting error codes (#4087)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f5a8798ee828_2e3219f0984ad"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ekr
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/FfRJpfVzvtIwwMibhIyVjX2nQ8M>
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: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:07:55 -0000

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:13 PM David Schinazi <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

> I believe we should fix the fact that we have two errors with the same
> code, however I think it would be best to just use 0xE for all these
> scenarios. At this point in the process, we're working on deploying h3-29
> and having a breaking wire change like this would be very unfortunate.
> Additionally, I cannot think of any action an implementation would take
> that would be different between KEY_UPDATE_ERROR and AEAD_LIMIT_REACHED.
> Any chance we could just rename AEAD_LIMIT_REACHED to KEY_UPDATE_ERROR and
> call it a day?
>
I think it's useful to distinguish what happened for logging and diagnostic
purposes.

I also don't understand why this creates a significant implementation
inconvenience. On the sending side, presumably you're just sending the
wrong code for a while and it's a bug, and on the receiving side, given
that you have to handle unknown error codes anyway (because they can be
IANA Registered), what's the problem if you receive an unknown error code
in this likely quite uncommon case?


-- 
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/4087#issuecomment-690689612

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status