Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Forwarding upstream error mid-body to downstream (#3300)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

@martinthomson 
> I don't think that this is a good response to this condition. It creates a situation where an intermediary purposefully violates the protocol. If the connection is broken, then let it be broken. The intermediary can forward precisely what it received, ensure that that data was received, then reset the stream if it truly cares about fidelity.

The problem here is that it is complex to ensure that the data was received before transmitting a reset. That's something that the QUIC transport does _not_ have a concept, and I'm not sure if we can except QUIC stacks to expose a signal indicating if data has been acked.

We might argue that in-order delivery of stream resets was a feature of HTTP/2, and that we need it in HTTP/3. As you state, I think we'd better define a way to patch up these situations, otherwise people might suffer from worse user experience when using HTTP/3.

Am I correct in assuming that your distaste is against the solution proposed in #3303 rather than against this issue itself? If so, would you be more open to using a HTTP/3 frame for indicating abrupt termination?

-- 
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/3300#issuecomment-566350354