Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does it matter if the the STOP_SENDING error code is something other than EARLY RESPONSE? (#3130)

Mike Bishop <> Wed, 23 October 2019 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11DD120274 for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r0yTcEe4uB3h for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF56212012D for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C7F92C3310 for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571861653; bh=pBqVSDRnZPvXqoErq25j2VaXGH2z2wISs+ar6/KOmjk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=CNp3eQsfOvRmJ3S9UQG+vt+++p4lLFU6aT3CG6O3F5VsFLMjMTesUVaLxYdAaQnyB /AMRKf8kLaf7HdHApwIMH9IVTqz6ep0RvcSIAWvaBzdWoW8tOu5Xiacev94UQoraKY w4GF3Jr5PVn1dFUMcEIjjVEXCz6P8pQx58zSRhuA=
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:14:13 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3130/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does it matter if the the STOP_SENDING error code is something other than EARLY RESPONSE? (#3130)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db0b495d9a1_16003fe9190cd9641329cd"; 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
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 20:14:16 -0000

Several of these are already in the draft:

> Clients MUST NOT discard complete responses as a result of having their request terminated abruptly, though clients can always discard responses at their discretion for other reasons.

> If a client stream terminates without enough of the HTTP message to provide a complete response, the server SHOULD abort its response with the error code H3_REQUEST_INCOMPLETE.

> If a stream is cancelled after receiving a complete response, the client MAY ignore the cancellation and use the response. 

Perhaps the clarification that's needed is to keep the "MAY abort reading," but separately say that "H3_EARLY_RESPONSE SHOULD be used as the error code"?  (Which does raise the question of whether it needs to be a separate error code from H3_NO_ERROR....)

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: