IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Collapse frame errors into HTTP_FRAME_ERROR (#2996)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Sun, 01 September 2019 23:57 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 347FB1200E5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 16:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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 BcpUU94HhzYn for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 16:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C78191200E0 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 16:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2019 16:57:10 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1567382230; bh=toDg1t0ZaNpJ250Z/V/KUKxp42ANXeB9elSHYhxED6M=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=q/4z8cwW8kIqI9ethaieq0ZxT7eiMRDaYWFODvz1SCOp+1hyOYVJ7CEOJJCwgnapH 1VmTO/c0Tunsynkr9dTKcOCwT9T2UTKV9WIsHxCefIQzUM1OlH9mNA0utdRFv1N2ny WaGa6Ljz3ZXoh2rLcOPmudUyDVm2Aj89sGP2seEM=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4OY6E7GTN5DPFMX2V3PGGVNEVBNHHBZ7DTNU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2996/c526964033@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2996@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2996@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Collapse frame errors into HTTP_FRAME_ERROR (#2996)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d6c5ad6b54ed_1cd43fc46f6cd96415088c"; 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/vSUEERxSj0xEpEQ5kVuS0Q_Ydq8>
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: Sun, 01 Sep 2019 23:57:13 -0000

Even though I am happy to see UNEXPECTED_FRAME and WRONG_STREAM errors getting merged, I am not sure if I like the idea of merging them with FRAME_ERROR.

FRAME_ERROR has been a code that indicates a syntactic error, implying that there is an issue in the frame encoder / parser. The other two error codes are semantic errors of specific type. I think having these two classes of errors indicated clearly helps us resolve issues quickly.

Compared to that, I am not sure if there is any practical advantage in unifying these two classes of errors. I'd assume that all HTTP/3 stacks would have a piece of code decodes a frame (or a varint) and another piece of code that checks if the ID (or the stream that carried the frame) is correct - to paraphrase, the two classes of errors are raised from different locations. Then, what's the problem with using different codes?

-- 
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/pull/2996#issuecomment-526964033

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email