Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Some correctness issues in the HTTP/3 drafts are stream errors, not connection errors (#2511)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Sat, 09 March 2019 14:18 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 F1230126E5C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 06:18:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.002 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 5bEvNvZKammh for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 06:17:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DDC31276D0 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 06:17:59 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 06:17:58 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1552141078; bh=KqTh7nZKifeCRLC2QL76E9TRJmmkWbLgFvmKNL8A4Mc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=X5Dm3y0LAz/Fp8IjS5GblRqAqJaJ2HmfjhGjKiwZsRtrVY3od4VgVUrOkTG76SzyU bJ6xPpXp0rfeX4wYzQ8FNjZFtLQxuOeNVaOIwvSwyqgkqIbqC8NzSdDYzd3ACKRADo vfufvgBSpfAhdzvrelxKyKDR6DYxYTe+hnWfoavU=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab74604c4cb50eadbbb7dc050bb540b658925da13f92cf00000001189b8d1692a169ce18fa336c@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2511/471181593@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2511@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2511@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Some correctness issues in the HTTP/3 drafts are stream errors, not connection errors (#2511)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c83cb16423c2_23b93fb53ced45b4336123"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/biLOg6ZVCHK3iel2JBMcLRUbbtg>
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: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 14:18:01 -0000

The current text is:
"encountering a larger message header SHOULD be treated as a stream error of type "HTTP_EXCESSIVE_LOAD".  If an implementation wishes to advise its peer of this limit, it can be conveyed as a number of bytes in the "SETTINGS_MAX_HEADER_LIST_SIZE" parameter."

To me, the issue here is that a peer can have a limit, but is not required to advertise that limit.  If we required that if a peer has a limit, it must advertise it and enforce it, then closing the connection makes sense to me.

Given it's really easy to advertise it and it's within encryption, I don't see any reason not to make that change, but it's a slightly larger change than the other cases, where we're changing obviously avoidable errors to connection errors.

-- 
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/2511#issuecomment-471181593