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

Kazuho Oku <> Thu, 02 January 2020 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 482571200F6 for <>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 17:13:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C2WqBis-Lb9c for <>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 17:13:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F256F1200DF for <>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 17:13:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5442B6A000C for <>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 17:13:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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 <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3300/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
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
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, 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: