Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] clarify that an endpoint cannot block on SETTINGS (#2986)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Fri, 23 August 2019 15:17 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 CB75C12084A for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_HELO_NONE=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 0UmcvNqw_Aw5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA045120104 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:17:49 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1566573469; bh=7LSWyK9stLG4bIsdFlNqZTfA927togWKOjMGjSvahaQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=CkIXwliZ8yJ2D5E/tWrYN3EwMgpexSJ5FqU4cldR2YE3n/y0UGLK/a3sqc3I5AjQH huENKZAxazsRBLdQ9Le+jUKN+b/PMXLPWoX6zJiMPXIk/U1OGeearofh7DlsZeYQuf pDwGqZtg2otVtlklzAUFgdu3360cw+CHW7KP1dMM=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5BVZZTQJEJGFU6FS53NU3B3EVBNHHBZXMXGI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2986/review/279064717@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2986@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2986@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] clarify that an endpoint cannot block on SETTINGS (#2986)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d60039d4496_677f3f90806cd964403354"; 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/hBcaWsy9HOUxM6ARD7yX7ACpVW8>
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: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:17:52 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1330,11 +1330,13 @@ If an endpoint receives a SETTINGS frame on a different stream, the endpoint
 MUST respond with a connection error of type HTTP_WRONG_STREAM.
 
 SETTINGS parameters are not negotiated; they describe characteristics of the
-sending peer, which can be used by the receiving peer. However, a negotiation
-can be implied by the use of SETTINGS - each peer uses SETTINGS to advertise a
-set of supported values. The definition of the setting would describe how each
-peer combines the two sets to conclude which choice will be used.  SETTINGS does
-not provide a mechanism to identify when the choice takes effect.
+sending peer, which can be used by the receiving peer. An endpoint MUST NOT wait
+for the peer's SETTINGS frame to arrive before sending it's own SETTINGS frame.
+However, a negotiation can be implied by the use of SETTINGS - each peer uses
+SETTINGS to advertise a set of supported values. The definition of the setting
+would describe how each peer combines the two sets to conclude which choice will
+be used.  SETTINGS does not provide a mechanism to identify when the choice
+takes effect.

Adding a sub-section on negotiation may be worthwhile, but I think it's better under it's own paragraph and sub-section.  And maybe as part of the fix for #2985?

-- 
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/2986#pullrequestreview-279064717