Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ambiguous wording about error codes in HTTP/3 (#3276)

afrind <> Thu, 09 January 2020 00:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA76A1200A3 for <>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:15:15 -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 ZAW6hEhOWi04 for <>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:15:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43E51120108 for <>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:15:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 16:15:13 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1578528913; bh=N9MlCxE/I2bsX9qzr45+THLaLaey4KxbjTrI21XUSN8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=auraNnjTIkGeR6ciNr+YwVtnWc4JfBa0u5PBTl1G5qR18IRDeaeqT+2b+TZGkSnNf zWh050iYK7dd9UDUhyKep5ny/S5xgydGRjMM2WaWPaqdfvnSaeB4/fNghZ/PQ0QVM+ UVMXdtQHB3+shvxLcPRJ43NZfJiGWD9Gl+Mfblu0=
From: afrind <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3276/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ambiguous wording about error codes in HTTP/3 (#3276)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e16709132fdf_401d3fe5faccd95c1163f1"; 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
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: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 00:15:16 -0000

> You shouldn't close the other direction because the first direction closed

If you receive a STOP_SENDING, aren't you supposed to RESET_STREAM if you haven't sent a FIN yet?  I guess the other direction is weirder (abrupt termination of response, should you terminate the request too. etc?) but probably tearing everything down is the right move most of the time?  At least it's not totally unexpected or catastrophic.  Preventing connection closure still seems like the main objective.

I think the general guidance of 'treat unknown error codes as you would treat NO_ERROR' is good, though.

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