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

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 12 June 2019 01:35 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 8ABCE120089 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 18:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.008 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, 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 QxzXxCkAsFZD for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 18:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6470D12002F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 18:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 18:35:46 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1560303346; bh=LmucBCQw29Ar7XvQdtwm3ZJGlh3ye5enM0O6QCNqYK8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=PeKVcEcWv1sqahdHLrI9mfJuDOGqAAnTjuVUQNzlcqulcVWAPscd8VaOMJR5cK+BI hyScBS4cPqvNKLwon/n+GDeven9PKdEPs2Oel5q5jCTFrwepK90Fdx5Wi0jLurS4Iu yfoBCFyBQxVY3uFODpUNUJHrrisstDWo7zMkXfPc=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK36PWED2PJQZSSEQKN3BWEXFEVBNHHBWGP2BE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2783/501085962@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2783@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2783@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consider making SETTINGS part of the control stream header (#2783)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d0056f22a0f5_21223fc4a3ecd9641041db"; 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/SkE-5w0Rf1bwrsmDG6R4G398rOE>
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: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:35:50 -0000

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