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

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Thu, 02 January 2020 01:13 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 482571200F6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 17:13:41 -0800 (PST)
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 C2WqBis-Lb9c for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 17:13:40 -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 F256F1200DF for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 17:13:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-2e54e43.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2e54e43.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.27]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5442B6A000C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 17:13:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1577927619; bh=a5hlzYdOBqo1eSKHEWMxJpK+f9rWb2H2405Ml6rvv4I=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=JeWED2mvRBxuPR8421KORbsX6CC92MzohDlnb+gy/mTJTu0EW/J5cMWrB3ijjeo8j knBHeJcu2Zyi5PP/NglW1c35EzcQ8cWL6zoj5OTGK6GyXm+M6f0ix0MyqhDHNlb6fb oJVwD8UdVZJmPzENZhwPmyxXGZSmFD7KMgXk487g=
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2020 17:13:39 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3EYPQ7KWPKFDBP2H54DJ3EHEVBNHHCABYU5A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3300/570099327@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_5e0d43c343f27_4db33faa16ecd95c545f4"; 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/zXfzjq8GyhO_XOD-AdvhRp9IBmw>
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: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 01:13:41 -0000

@MikeBishop I agree to your comments, with the only exception that I do not think we have "overreached."

In my view, HTTP/2 is underspecified in sense that it allows any stream error to be promoted to a connection error, even though as we agree, a stream error that might have originated from an origin cannot be promoted to a connection error.

I think it is an improvement in HTTP/3, to be more explicit about the distinction between the two types of errors. Therefore, even though I am not sure if I like the complexity of defining the type of error for every possible scenario, I'd prefer trying to do that until we fail.

-- 
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-570099327