Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PUSH_ID as a frame (#2526)

Luca Niccolini <notifications@github.com> Mon, 18 March 2019 19:35 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 987EE1289FA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:35:52 -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 ZAYZj0ROTh-N for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:35:50 -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 95E2E12795E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:35:49 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1552937749; bh=SOLJrJQOyJFp+4rWcYYJnmyav22x7hyWu1E7aVLmSsk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=L9sXvW0zAyzaG5zu/NKQI43AuB5cGomcxB9EAQX2oOZleoVj94rQ72d8bhXMgzTWb B17/c5YApmbNlIk58Gth1cR/mQM3+Y5ldLg4m/zHv62VLuE2ozlhhOMxFIZiISwDap OErDpxbx77Tedkz2qdfn23vZmOJsFj+PWvMV4b20=
From: Luca Niccolini <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab8e0bfa28dd96f7d69b6e4d20056f34bde39c2f3892cf0000000118a7b51592a169ce1926a629@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2526/474068879@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2526@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2526@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PUSH_ID as a frame (#2526)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c8ff31590973_58273fc355cd45bc858d4"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: lnicco
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/jOoaLL26N50DYK4MTZRm7I8ls9k>
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, 18 Mar 2019 19:35:53 -0000

It was just an example. And as I said I don't feel strongly about the error handling nit. 
But if you must, yes if you assume headers is the first frame after the push_id then yes you would read 0x1 which is conveniently a server initiated bidirectional stream which is not allowed anyway, so you could reject it immediately. But I find this just fortuitous. 

For example, one could make a counter argument: why are we framing SETTINGS at all given that it is the first message on the control stream ? 
We also defined it quite clearly in this table what to do with it [Certain frames can only occur as the first frame of a particular stream type; these are indicated in Table 1 with a (1).] 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-http-19#section-4
Is there zero value in doing that for the PUSH_ID as well? 
I personally think there is.

Anyway, I think we are diverting this the wrong route. 
All I am looking for here is a good explanation for why it is defined like it is now, and I am failing to find it. 
As far as the implementation goes it makes little difference, and I guess it is more of a consistency problem for me. That naked varint on the wire triggers my OCD :) 

So instead of going back and forth like this, perhaps @MikeBishop can shed some light on the good reasons why it is this way.

-- 
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/2526#issuecomment-474068879