Re: Duplicated TPs vs duped HTTP/3 settings
Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 10 May 2019 01:39 UTC
Return-Path: <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A6BB120045 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 18:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 JPzrikIfCC_E for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 18:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B815A120004 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 18:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id x132so2965977lfd.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 May 2019 18:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=FaU2JinMAIVADHxowOgDcH6owVqMyQRFw4SEBCHrXuw=; b=Jg5iYH/gFiRyhP7K8YBSgztGy6yA/nPpkw/oGJsjiT03sVCcSmd8ps80UztUdV3RzQ pWAY6nBT5I2/Ujz0e2qtLTX3fYCm+ej3BHX2teiTRtOo6stjlx1860L8ORy25HI4F0xD UMoIUT493CpFPqrvypxGqnVv0MjR6dKRRjy+MuEanCap2TXJF8avuUI5mmq7I1kJuam1 plHLGGOEWwVTDNTZn9yla5hOljXbrc9RWfQWM+0ontMGjIU1KwGJ6pfyp+LkRQBVurbL x+SLn6LxQmkGJYPTk53X+EIuaZhFFpfgmd7FRW/wvN2PWuz/toL1XltyfjpA4544mRmf RZOQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=FaU2JinMAIVADHxowOgDcH6owVqMyQRFw4SEBCHrXuw=; b=F4qy60YZnsPhHJcrFwm60ISqsredymqfx1tIsD3Acs3IYxD1hpkyY6NF5jpKO7K35n Ie2AQky1ExAxCO+8G6O8USTFsoAbjDC9LqJIgrhftf5t4xKeMX/Mte07kdhnVmd3CweK EC2X1JDK2AkIoqVfCqKoQe0Szl7jfO4TWZAFl/Kj3WEPlqkkNecXCJl5MSiXSncM9XK0 IEG+DB+nFSpIFmkSx5EOS9GEREcZxb2fmcrXAenR0chNV/gl3qm3WQ7Dlmiln7bvL0Sk ltxxjYFr8MRVMUggljWT2DDJ6ThxrY4bCfelHTbs6VaLryI3YuFE2MFiUW2twzzxGafy Y90A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWGWP1CdoCeZVvwUTdQyJOIgFQqcV4QQGvS+jN8spm0KmzXfD5w rLOVDZC/BlmXqbh9POw5aSkEEf7RXaKtsrtoE4GheA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxzmZUJnGqFOuLTt0KHU2Maddve0NNMAnCbKPoyNBYPXd9XGojdAAEyeNCEqTADIup5MDQbt0pZlq0HE0Zouv4=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5621:: with SMTP id b1mr4447520lff.27.1557452364636; Thu, 09 May 2019 18:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190503122143.GA26519@ubuntu-dmitri>
In-Reply-To: <20190503122143.GA26519@ubuntu-dmitri>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 18:39:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CACpbDce2WJeh8v-Q1_Jrw9oMYwzky+Nts2Nj1mVnQZA-y4papQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Duplicated TPs vs duped HTTP/3 settings
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f2e72305887ea29a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/3QLyDlVJOeTSTJ4H4e_bePQaqRM>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 01:39:29 -0000
Hi Dmitri, Your proposal sounds quite reasonable. Can you open an issue for it? This will be a design issue that will need consensus. - jana On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:22 AM Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> wrote: > Hello, > > A recent GitHub discussion [1] reminded me that duplicated transport > parameters MUST be treated as error [2]. This is in contrast to > duplicated HTTP/3 settings, which MAY be treated as an error. > > Why the inconsistency? > > The checks for duplicated transport (or settings) parameters are > expensive, because one has to maintain an arbitrarily-sized set > of possibly large numbers. > > I propose we switch the duplicate TP parameters enforcement to > "MAY treat as error." > > - Dmitri. > > 1. https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2663 > 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-20#section-7.3 > >
- Duplicated TPs vs duped HTTP/3 settings Dmitri Tikhonov
- Re: Duplicated TPs vs duped HTTP/3 settings Jana Iyengar
- Re: Duplicated TPs vs duped HTTP/3 settings Dmitri Tikhonov