Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] H3 GOAWAY should be symmetric and cover bidi and uni streams (#2632)

afrind <> Thu, 24 October 2019 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BA9120090 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_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] 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 fi_cnd1kmwT2 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35B79120020 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7DF261671 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571947584; bh=TnHI+7vgVJoLSARm1+NZ9zm921fWIykcTAN3r+C9vbQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=GlBD26MzfoEWjwzL2lA8Db8JWKIxs8FHiTp1fignsjdkwUlf37MQnvIj93lu2jFJB smaj/+Y4ogOnUGRN1Yji320VNiPmSfrdoay/XqUgI0GVYV+mZC3kNTvuW/K7+R7fuW IoK4vRH9Q87U791Vw2ljrAy9zN36si4jX5CQyY3g=
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:06:24 -0700
From: afrind <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2632/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] H3 GOAWAY should be symmetric and cover bidi and uni streams (#2632)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db2044079a31_4073f8b8b4cd960311713"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: afrind
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: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:06:27 -0000

Ah, I was trying to get the behavior @mt was after for pushes (eg: let the server keep pushing if it wants to), and didn't intend to allow the client to send more requests after receiving a GOAWAY -- that doesn't work.

But it sounds like we'd prefer to keep the push behavior symmetric with h2 (no more pushes after GOAWAY receipt) than introduce a new push semantic where the client can allow pushes to continue even after signaling its intent to close.  This is more along the lines that @LPardue was advocating for - where the intent to close and how pushes are wound down are completely decoupled frames.

The discussion on slack I thought was different - it was about what the *sender* of a GOAWAY should do with new incoming streams.  I intended the PR to reflect that the sender of a GOAWAY should continue allowing requests or pushes with ID's smaller than the sent GOAWAY value.  Do we agree this is the right behavior?

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