Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Forwarding upstream error mid-body to downstream (#3300)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 18 December 2019 01:59 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 93D97120073 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:59:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 4oCAs9dkibgr for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:59:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7601E120043 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:59:15 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:59:14 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1576634354; bh=kLAWwfU0wDCFCmbV52+JKDUt5j7lHSE1VmNuGlmhIeM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Hoh2z4t2MiY9COHmqilU5cIYuy/JGWGTzLhhiQLoVDLIAHf62mdtQeVU+T3TAVOqf QZ6IIRid0w5MH8RIBwUj8aDLvuA+LBFocOYjEkVWutGSTr5G7VnlvN3JQEXT6K6c02 2MbuC9Cznq519EILOsOTOJ+MCiChmY9f0earthwU=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYFMGTZQAIWBDWYP6F4A25HFEVBNHHCABYU5A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3300/566832026@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3300@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3300@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Forwarding upstream error mid-body to downstream (#3300)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5df987f28326b_4fc33fa6168cd95c155777"; 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/z0In0AZbqmYGyeQjeCLM_StzRKk>
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, 18 Dec 2019 01:59:18 -0000

@RyanAtGoogle 
> Adding in-order stream reset sounds extremely complicated at either the HTTP/3 or QUIC layers. The particular use case here does not seem compelling enough to warrant this complexity.

As stated above, if it ought to be a complicated mechanism at the HTTP/3 layer depends on the how the HTTP/3 tunnel frames the response. As we've discussed previously in #1885, an HTTP/3 intermediaries can and will have different framing strategies. When the strategy employed by an intermediary is to create a new DATA frame every time it emits something, sending a HTTP frame to indicate an error after sending all the HTTP response it has is trivial.

All that said, I think that we might not need a new frame after all.

We already allow a HTTP tunnel to send a malformed response (see [the third paragraph of section 4.1.3](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-http.html#section-4.1.3-3)). That tunnel might be coalescing HTTP messages going to different endpoints. That means that an endpoint should not handle a stream that contains invalid DATA frames as a connection-level issue.

I've changed #3303 to be a clarification of this requirement, which has been implicit until now.

WDYT?

-- 
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/3300#issuecomment-566832026