IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] error handling for path_response (#1265)

Patrick McManus <notifications@github.com> Fri, 06 April 2018 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 E4783124D37 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 10:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 K5x4vqdujnS4 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 10:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from o7.sgmail.github.com (o7.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44C0012025C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 10:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=JCUmuYsjZgfT6HiMMNHCK3kf/pc=; b=AFDd8bWI/xoTz+Tw aJGZJRlpPANHYX1O86iJ+8EgBigaoIqtQqZxt2AFgA0bKRO/MpVGm1WQjnHlqx/5 TETk0kofSy82aWKBv+QZVonYxUd9PUNOYsAZ6xvB1a+O2iEFzHkOvPqAMOiG/AX/ 5rDRf6MtgYn3lAKwzTTXcw2AY90=
Received: by filter0542p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0542p1mdw1-22701-5AC7B09C-20 2018-04-06 17:38:36.838619213 +0000 UTC
Received: from smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) by ismtpd0049p1mdw1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id rUL5UNRtRlWMETng3kcQvQ for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 17:38:36.828 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 17:38:36 +0000
From: Patrick McManus <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab59073f894131e78517dbaf9551dbb74ffee33dc392cf0000000116df729c92a169ce129392a1@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1265/379324682@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1265@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1265@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] error handling for path_response (#1265)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ac7b09ca7e4c_17d22b25206e4ec81516d0"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mcmanus
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3Ed46KaReu6k6DaE0pAY6WoNJDIIfERf0USj eq+LhikHhNi16iV3Yny9sBu0QTMsNgauMsoyAsNIrOZioYdiqmC4tHvJ++WJyL4/nYmNrH0511pk+M yfNdsadj9+xJAtaX5w0ab3N2kaZ7fNXZS0bdnZwEiS59Lq5vR9tzP3/+jd8YW7czJmj9T5orcMcd4b E=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/RzYvxKUmTOXJCLONaAfOIvJF-_U>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 06 Apr 2018 17:38:40 -0000

I think I stand by 'footgun' - its not impossible to do but the value is small and the opportunity for screw up is disproportionate.

Its just based on experience of reading the provision in the text and starting off to build a system to enforce it (because I too enjoy strong protocol hygiene) .. and after getting down the road aways realizing that a full definition of this was madness.

Do we have a general provision regarding MAY PROTOCOL_VIOLATION as a reaction to a MUST (NOT) violation? That might be the right level of emphasis rather than a specific error code.

-- 
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/1265#issuecomment-379324682

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