IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Introduce HTTP_REQUEST_REJECTED (#2325)

David Schinazi <notifications@github.com> Thu, 10 January 2019 17:13 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 6D3E9130ED1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:13:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 JX6qOy9W5nOl for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-3.smtp.github.com (out-3.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF7BD130EB4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:13:45 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1547140425; bh=v/9sd7XdghLonbQeh36n/E7FT/lPLwGmPJIb0imlw+k=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=JveF+X3NsI5uRxVoZSV5d9crbE3zpCn2YK5Ig7Tpg68okRio0LDHspalfvgX8j65C wjjg3NYPWFijMjw901cjbcW72Mcri6jRgCjWZtv3GMK+jLxoLFdruRhjStSnNq8eDH scjw4Vl9+XCGtM5ZIOdNp881zHzRblncnj03TJV8=
From: David Schinazi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab973ca342b116857ccf8cf89720ad3664bbb2784b92cf00000001184f3f4992a169ce17b15bb5@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2325/review/191318753@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2325@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2325@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Introduce HTTP_REQUEST_REJECTED (#2325)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c377d49c5a19_a3f3fc05c6d45b420831c"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
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/zu3383zzM9FmzvdB2kgYbil-a6c>
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, 10 Jan 2019 17:13:49 -0000

DavidSchinazi commented on this pull request.



> @@ -963,20 +963,20 @@ for each header field.
 
 ### Request Cancellation
 
-Either client or server can cancel requests by aborting the stream (QUIC
-RESET_STREAM and/or STOP_SENDING frames, as appropriate) with an error code of
+Clients can cancel requests by aborting the stream (QUIC RESET_STREAM and/or
+STOP_SENDING frames, as appropriate) with an error code of
 HTTP_REQUEST_CANCELLED ({{http-error-codes}}).  When the client cancels a
 response, it indicates that this response is no longer of interest.
 Implementations SHOULD cancel requests by aborting both directions of a stream.

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of this PR? If a server receives STOP_SENDING with HTTP_REQUEST_CANCELLED, it doesn't reject the request, it acts on the client's cancellation. In that case I think it would make more sense for the server to use HTTP_REQUEST_CANCELLED.

-- 
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/pull/2325#discussion_r246846343

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email