Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rationalize HTTP/3 stream creation errors (#2821)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 26 June 2019 04:56 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 E80CC120608 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.383
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.383 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 RzHAOtEA8nUk for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA04812060A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:56:43 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1561525003; bh=BWFs/Oq4tHOmc5vxcdusRIIpiYnh6Akei2yLCKaQUVs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=HDcEr4wpQm9UIdVuLVqvnEUb+edIgGHd0A2E9h4uHyX9+YRPo9KExBNnCMxSCZky3 /sYgfFQP5c+KbfXaMs6gCZxa+xFHCzDiSLFRiZJ1HSnfa+QhRoaqwf3GsDOBTlfCi2 gO2206iLcGZlh5yZZGBLYOMeFB8dpMNKPKC9pleU=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZ4NX6Y6VSEVSTCQ2V3EAWYXEVBNHHBWV7AZQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2821/505718189@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2821@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2821@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rationalize HTTP/3 stream creation errors (#2821)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d12fb0b5e601_47e33ff5350cd96463689f"; 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/s6pfyZ5T41qYxAe9wB5oYuBPoBc>
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: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 04:56:48 -0000

Should a client respond with STREAM_CREATION_ERROR when it sees the server opening a bidirectional stream?

At the moment the designated error code is HTTP_GENERAL_PROTOCOL_ERROR, but STREAM_CREATION_ERROR might be a better fit.

Or if we are not going to use STREAM_CREATION_ERROR for server-initiated bidirectional streams, I think we should better rename it to UNIDIRECTIONAL_STREAM_CREATION_ERROR to avoid confusion.

-- 
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/2821#issuecomment-505718189