Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consider making SETTINGS part of the control stream header (#2783)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

While the proposal is interesting, I think my preference goes to retaining the current design.

I agree that HTTP_MISSING_SETTINGS is unnecessary, it is my view that it should be merged to HTTP_UNEXPECTED_FRAME.

But once it gets done, it would be my view that the complexity is indifferent; there is no difference in the encoding-side (just sending different series of octets). On the decoding-side, it either having a state that receives series of special octets or a state that receives a particular frame.

That said, the reason I prefer using a frame for carrying the settings is because it makes the design consistent. Having a layer that is used for "frame"-ing all the information being exchanged is a good thing.

IMO the use of HTTP_UNEXPECTED_FRAME or HTTP_WRONG_STREAM in relation to SETTINGS frame is fine, because use of these errors are the design pattern we use for other frames too. For example, HTTP_UNEXPECTED_FRAME is used to indicate error when the peer sends a DATA frame before a HEADERS frame. Or transmission of a HEADERS frame on the control stream triggers the HTTP_WRONG_STREAM error.

I prefer using that same design pattern for everything, rather than creating different rules for the way things are being sent in each state.

-- 
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/2783#issuecomment-501085962