Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Forwarding upstream errors, and the implications (#3300)

Jana Iyengar <> Sat, 21 December 2019 01:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6541209EE for <>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:22:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OT0L8pgfpi-R for <>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:22:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2861C1209EB for <>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:22:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:22:45 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1576891365; bh=WPmKDxw+5Y9zAIdKX25ncUwUr57SUOifF+PdCbY0PAY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=QFYnTRJiB8AxC8dLy653L+h2GzDB9DIx2yeKcMUWto17K8eRE74tL3s3IUgwVYh79 73dJDsWjlkHF2xFalRz+h1ibg9cdHBxGxPyFMP9l727p1Ce281S6nLtz1gzI8vcP2z 4ojO1/c3cRKFOPVujk1j5vceKBl2aJuJW7VdphHU=
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3300/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Forwarding upstream errors, and the implications (#3300)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dfd73e5d3dd4_14d3fa9b2acd9605898e6"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 01:22:48 -0000

> I'm less sanguine about saying the tunnel could silently pass through things like truncated frames, unknown frame types, etc.

It seems to me that we don't need to specify what tunnels _ought to_ do but recognize what tunnels _might_ do. The way I read it, Kazuho's proposed recommendation makes sense when a tunnel passes a partial response through, as H2O does and others might as well.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: