Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] all HTTP/3 protocol violations should lead to connection errors (#2510)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Mon, 11 March 2019 20:16 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 7DCEB12796B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 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, 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 V163huBaAE24 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:16:23 -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 C08C7131151 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:16:19 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1552335379; bh=SkjLqPVQaAez0fmlYwDaaoVB5VDbVlWsjlEEDT9fuQs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Zus8EFo/lT/1Mcon66LbpG0F8Evpk+RHPcvINlS3A2dIze5GFCzPJ3YbLkSe9Xcp8 LF5tw5REIOgTNFRr53pAnYY+eKsJNcse1OJSRi57NctmBGox1Y0MKmSPzR2qfxgvnP F093BkNW1RVC/llBd35WPpVSf53pFfU2IKzC9WoY=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abd6003d1ef835652b627d16e55a69b60fb214a43392cf00000001189e841392a169ce18fa182f@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2510/c471710008@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2510@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2510@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] all HTTP/3 protocol violations should lead to connection errors (#2510)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c86c2133b4bf_1e353f9753cd45b8470b8"; 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/c6sSxPZZa8nyeu0_9s2WjhaJR2g>
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: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 20:16:33 -0000

@dtikhonov 
>> An endpoint MUST NOT send a header list that exceeds the peer-advised limit.
> 
> How can this be justified? This is a departure from RFC 7540, which states in two places that this setting is only advisory.

Yeah. My read of HTTP/3 is that it is already different from HTTP/2 this respect. It is no more clarifies as "advisory," no there is a mention that a client can exceed the limit (a text that exists in RFC 7540).

Regarding the ideal behavior, I prefer being strict here, because it would give us the most predictive behavior at a minimal cost (it's trivial to check the size, isn't it?). Think it from an end-user perspective. Without the restriction, we might see one user-agent telling you that the request is too large, and the other processing the same request. That'd be confusing.

-- 
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/pull/2510#issuecomment-471710008