Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow the Transport to Stop/Reset a Stream? (#3291)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Fri, 13 December 2019 00:24 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 10E601200B3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:24:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_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] 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 iLEEJQR0ZSPT for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:24:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 162CE120071 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:24:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:24:03 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1576196643; bh=0J0vTjq/jnNPnuMlzN9DvidcOIBQ/+T0UlmVhFbftxY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=fD/UXSjcXA7DG9ZyuD+DZI1hs/rRhXVNWqrTGOeumfIFhW+ei2uNSBBfue7yjMuRC JG8NtWBttua3OxNbhFhVdNRdmaSyenDiU3AGFX2A+lIqDz6A9x139he3KQrPRW1pSR Jtg6Cz0FHXf9Iy7eiAYF8G/0GxIVtIVjOlIKekdE=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7YG2B4EVL2PPOYZTV4AAGKHEVBNHHB7WKXVY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3291/565247347@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3291@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3291@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow the Transport to Stop/Reset a Stream? (#3291)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5df2da23291a9_61a73f9da64cd9601388d6"; 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/S-yAXJgW9O9pB7ocyxvwrGWY0gY>
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, 13 Dec 2019 00:24:06 -0000

Right.

I agree that it is beneficial to have rich set of information being given to the application for diagnosing issues. That's an internal API design issue.

If that information should be exposed to the peer is a different point, which has security implications too. We already have the transport-level error code, and also a field to hold arbitrary string that can be used for explaining the cause. I do not think we need more than that.

-- 
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/3291#issuecomment-565247347