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

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 18 December 2019 05:29 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 10F5A1208A4 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:29:53 -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 OOXsxo_qD6pQ for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:29:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B61D0120098 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:29:51 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:29:50 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1576646991; bh=XYEd1HgPEJjUxyQsnysCm97iQrVSZVnr6b4o/6IxtJo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=sWBER190clMwMePNgGnagcrm5eCF7rceS/ircfTOrQpgWUrcsZM3q4vC7GuxF8Awp et5w0OPHNACfXfscBFrygH5rJq0yM7oxkY/FAb1Ngl5DDJCxjgbNPz1mxlMFmuRsRF el6q2XcllgjUTGggw8Irvd2dQyjUbfghhJPE+OKw=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYTWDWI2NYFZK4JEXV4A3V45EVBNHHCABYU5A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3300/566874094@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 errors, and the implications (#3300)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5df9b94ef2f21_58883f8c73ccd960810cc"; 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/z8mIF8pMU63qwL5bMdiUrHErock>
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 05:29:53 -0000

@janaiyengar Changed the title. Though I'm not sure if you like the new one. I think the only difference is that we are now talking about errors in the headers too.

@RyanAtGoogle 
> No additional complexity in HTTP/3 or QUIC? SGTM.

Yes. That true for what we have now in #3303.

Though, unfortunately, I now realize that we have the [following provision in section 7.1](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-http.html#section-7.1-6): When a stream terminates cleanly, if the last frame on the stream was truncated, this MUST be treated as a connection error of type H3_FRAME_ERROR._

If we consider that a tunnel should be allowed to send DATA frames (or HTTP/1 chunks) that it receives from upstream as is, forwarding them frame-by-frame to downstream, and expect things to work, then we need change this provision to so that incomplete (DATA) frames at the end of the stream would be considered as a malformed response instead of a connection-level error.

I would prefer making such a change, though I would anticipate hearing objections. Admittedly, it is an unnecessary complexity for clients, and for server deployments who control the origin. To this end, I wonder what other proxy vendors think.

@MikeBishop @LPardue 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-566874094