Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] MAX_PUSH_ID: lower-than-previous value conn error seems too severe (#2412)

Martin Thomson <> Mon, 04 February 2019 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF7751277D2 for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:53:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.552
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, 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_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 4eNQCXSnPzjk for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:53:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1841E127598 for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:53:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 14:53:39 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1549320819; bh=8mNEWen41V01IeMQWYCz7d0/T3duC9ItNcrg8/SFKxQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=EidGOe7G+zY3D18J09bN1HaGxpvMru+vHNTNT3DgJXF3ux8FJoQWBtP7pQnmN7Tkp J/nA/YDLmXImVjU5HVtXlsIUS4YN11Q3tqVB/hNQi/2UBkE6cgy5OPQClDcEsFOkZq qr26J8mEhQPH1TS/FMIRwPH5XwnaEqbIY23VdtSw=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2412/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] MAX_PUSH_ID: lower-than-previous value conn error seems too severe (#2412)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c58c27392753_2e883fe9586d45bc1895e4"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 22:53:43 -0000

A connection error is entirely appropriate.  The awkward compromise we have in the transport docs exists because there is at least a plausible argument in support of ignoring regressions in limits.  There, reordering and retransmission schemes might produce the situation (even if the latter might be somewhere between inadvisable and malicious).  Here, the frames appear on a strictly ordered stream with no chance that it is going to be missed.  I see no reason to treat this leniently.

The error code question I have no opinion on, other than to suggest the application of principles already articulated.

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