[quicwg/base-drafts] Error code to be sent when the size of request headers exceed server's limit (#2775)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Fri, 07 June 2019 02:21 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 8252B120159 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.391
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 q_rBdygmd740 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 19:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F051120144 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 19:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 19:21:50 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1559874110; bh=iNgYmbU0UJmramsvRFqYfnAwyd7SGOS5yl5OpEtbuQo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=bFO4BeoYYzIix7Y6P2PBIxxLHRGoECf6oLRJd99TdnZpRQ4YopfMtMyEZjJwzKHkN WS8hqy2JD1ETYUBNf+gN4IvfhX0yqN1Tez3iY8ekQBRDwxV4Q53xk192RSh9IO7tBO u1P3e1W04nyBlEFB0vlsva8+0Xc8yTg8hw9Gu04E=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZRLWDBWKT2C5IIIIV3A36L5EVBNHHBWBH5ZM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2775@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Error code to be sent when the size of request headers exceed server's limit (#2775)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cf9ca3eb54d2_3caa3fc98c2cd964141327"; 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/OC9slEsayPRiDvhl_ZW6XGQz-us>
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, 07 Jun 2019 02:21:54 -0000

At the moment, the HTTP spec says that "an HTTP/3 implementation MAY impose a limit on the maximum size of the header it will accept on an individual HTTP message; encountering a larger message header SHOULD be treated as a stream error of type `HTTP_EXCESSIVE_LOAD`."

Is this the intended behavior?

IIUC, HTTP_EXCESSIVE_LOAD indicates a temporary issue inside the server; a client is allowed to retransmit the request hoping that it would succeed the next time. In contrary to that, I view the size of the request exceeding the maximum imposed by the server to be a permanent error, and therefore that a different error code should be used. Or even better a HTTP status code, because what we want here is not a hop-by-hop signal; the other benefit of suggesting the use of a HTTP status code is that it removes the risk of the connection getting shut down (an action that affects other requests).


-- 
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/2775