Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "malformed" definition (#3352)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Fri, 17 January 2020 18:41 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 B3C65120025 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:41:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 VacIBqsYifMj for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:41:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FED712007C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:41:28 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:41:27 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1579286487; bh=+L2pvMuIz3Qc+L5kzqb8X6Jw95EXTu3FZeRhyabzeQk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=nR9JxzjXcLZdgCrHoZ8rvF2vpqxyZ0DPK/tYW6eST8c/6+2Hrd24a6Yh37LqHGvlJ +7GPxjqDGDGZYoQlr83GEX7fPBTK77G5T0/xK47L9GOw2toLuaXNIAP7LszB/05skU FCLGhJDMXkJP2XxLQO8eI2qCb/JbLVC/v86HHfTE=
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3573O55GLZ7T7TJP54F4ZFPEVBNHHCBV7VNU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3352/review/344762788@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3352@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3352@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "malformed" definition (#3352)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e21ffd75e08d_12953ff7f80cd96c6916b"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/N0XIPIyMtZ1BarH_qtfU1Ab4h5A>
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: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 18:41:35 -0000

MikeBishop commented on this pull request.



> @@ -410,10 +417,10 @@ considered invalid.
 
 An HTTP request/response exchange fully consumes a bidirectional QUIC stream.

After reading the whole section, I think that while the section intends to talk about both push and requests, this paragraph is specific to requests.  I've added more discussion of push streams above, but I think I'm going to leave this particular paragraph alone, modulo fixing @LPardue's initial suggestion.

> -those defined in {{!HTTP2}}.  The restrictions on the use of pseudo-header
-fields in Section 8.1.2 of {{!HTTP2}} also apply to HTTP/3.  Messages which
-are considered malformed under these restrictions are handled as described in
-{{malformed}}.
+the status code for the response.
+
+Pseudo-header fields are not HTTP header fields.  Endpoints MUST NOT generate
+pseudo-header fields other than those defined in this document, except as
+negotiated via an extension; see {{extensions}}.
+
+Pseudo-header fields are only valid in the context in which they are defined.
+Pseudo-header fields defined for requests MUST NOT appear in responses;
+pseudo-header fields defined for responses MUST NOT appear in requests.
+Pseudo-header fields MUST NOT appear in trailers.  Endpoints MUST treat a
+request or response that contains undefined or invalid pseudo-header fields as
+malformed ({{malformed}}).

Nope, it actually does wrap this way by sheer coincidence.  (Or @martinthomson was playing a really long prank in RFC 7540.)

-- 
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/3352#discussion_r368075798