Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Forwarding status of errors on streams (#3303)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Thu, 02 January 2020 02:57 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 48A89120072 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 18:57:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_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 2PYAccyw5O-z for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 18:57:44 -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 F236F120046 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 18:57:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-56fcc46.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-56fcc46.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.102.32]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 076902C0FED for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 18:57:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1577933863; bh=gJtwH0XmJOZ4zjVAaXial1ccobep3PfnuvZbIE0/xAU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=eEsjJdJB0DwfpYp46z5A/tIH4DbDDYMPTiH0rNm+uSw6VxZtlEfZUyLxKykS2I+Ac 5E6mEKmx+gyym1gfo5I71qIS/Wlz1DA9nE5LnyzZDpxqzruJZT1wBHj4wFePEmzhyA +4vR4rg1o/QlZUhrY+GO0OpR0+nrzF5gIPXW0CMg=
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2020 18:57:42 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7YFNRH4ZSHDOALU7V4DKHKNEVBNHHCAHIHBM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3303/c570107754@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3303@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3303@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Forwarding status of errors on streams (#3303)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e0d5c26ec40f_6d333f803cacd96425066d"; 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/LZEchB7Xdr_g-oDKI2NfHwGnO0M>
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, 02 Jan 2020 02:57:46 -0000

@ianswett @martinthomson Am I correct in assuming that you are arguing for prohibiting tunnels to forward malformed HTTP messages (e.g., those contain prohibited header fields)?

While I can see the beauty of such design, I am uncertain if that's a good approach. Use of an HTTP header field, which is end-to-end information, might make an HTTP message malformed. I wonder if an intermediary would be capable of detecting all such misuses. One extreme case that I can think of is an HTTP extension defining a new HTTP header field, that must not be sent as a trailer. Do we want an HTTP/3 intermediary to understand all the header fields that it forwards?

-- 
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/3303#issuecomment-570107754