Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] H3 GOAWAY should be symmetric and cover bidi and uni streams (#2632)

afrind <notifications@github.com> Thu, 25 July 2019 13:33 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 86451120024 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, 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 uyW8HKvr9O4B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-17.smtp.github.com (out-17.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A34F8120043 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:33:51 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1564061631; bh=YPZ8Yt+q2DWjX9kpo95jGKYtZJWsV0Z9EBJJyYE1Rnc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=1ya5huTcG5inbFpGtp22CuVZTyoMno3H/EI65jYA/5CqgQE2Q1lMHELe7sWaMMH4Z Yn66sOOFeKrQ7SImzvKoKpFP4UIxi8Jp7wCDRcOcxY+NMkb4ztFdbHZCBwSMwcCclu yGCp25Lg88504XMKCGM4l1rFu4SoDpKQ1HhQfYPc=
From: afrind <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZ4KD757FQRIVUNCVV3I3RD7EVBNHHBTZTRJU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2632/515045178@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2632@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2632@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] H3 GOAWAY should be symmetric and cover bidi and uni streams (#2632)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d39afbf98495_19a83fa97e4cd9684296d"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: afrind
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/lvWbi3YJBFx9LyW7ng9HjqoDqNA>
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: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:33:55 -0000

To summarize the discussion on the HTTP list:

* H2 GOAWAY is symmetric
* A GOAWAY sent by the client will prevent any pushes higher than the last-stream-id in the GOAWAY
* Martin feels like this behavior is wrong, and it shouldn't be carried over into H3.

Do we need to build consensus from the HTTP working group that it is OK to deviate from H2 semantics in H3, like we are now planning to do for priorities? 

-- 
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/2632#issuecomment-515045178