Re: PRIORITY stream error?

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Wed, 06 March 2019 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <lucaspardue.24.7@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 B5D9412F1A2 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:45:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 S3hHC1RSWvBL for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:45:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe29.google.com (mail-vs1-xe29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e29]) (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 E909A12008A for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:45:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe29.google.com with SMTP id w14so3379731vso.6 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:45:57 -0800 (PST)
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 :cc; bh=3DoPvhByD5EC9a20slJfX/eBB9/tmJzW5UUUYWKKUIU=; b=qh/hNBstrPJdGZmRzxvvwnaN0cwSr4+ei79AQrWjOcdCxL7X7pZXfZmbbudfps0osx 2sHWpQGOiprxHjrCFn4v/8O37fcHmS6wGAnnSOntfg/L2Qe04/YPbmFdJ/diTTG7zonb YA1EKX/UpBoYGJg73+/Qh4Yo15wJBwL+nBQgUVYbGAP7p9fKKz8HVVl0FFIdVhDm4gSd x3HCV24eDNoYXlQy7L0Mk1pT+B+FrF3nWI81duWTmWQr2iyxax6Ldn2OdgoHUgiRmU+6 KfHaRNPx4DO17NbPWCx5dt+N13Ok1Pmj0X5x8kgd0dL239LiND9sKWlw8nYESOIBx8t/ o9lQ==
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:cc; bh=3DoPvhByD5EC9a20slJfX/eBB9/tmJzW5UUUYWKKUIU=; b=M0vUbh7OW9A4vrl6psFMeBFc+9UwewhthiQcq0pfwz5s6Sl+nYX/TPcWl7gFHbD0uW isGpz5944rSK4PwumM6c4bWQtBxEFcxt+bjw/OxZR47pV25q0HaiyDqKB1/My5FJaPOi HLq6n7GLZg5A1Z+77y1/bjf5EOTGG4xmDC/BRkYvqQy8k4EH2sQNoPq3RVrRXA7N50pB BD5Qtnj9+8aDDTFd2p/xvEM87jj5wFEn913P4ej+kFfK/T4q6/2mOFDu384s//bFjy7t uWsSan0SdiCgTTinQEpt50TZMcp0DOqidBmk+2jLIRuIUPrwiRlPqVcB1g9Zq1hELwec UhyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXKawqYxMQFiETlonxYs14zCZdFfgk02T/lALyfTsd9ZtM+IcKK jw/DcRbAnlFFcQ5QqWhhe6bNIUB0210waKAk5AA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy6pI4iBqtdnwxGiQ0VFOT1UtsWI7tOHHIS5tI9PzNvd3mBYH2L9v3OjWApaES/RDAfVQTJUULrK6knUZb5Z/U=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:c415:: with SMTP id c21mr1766862vsk.100.1551915956839; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:45:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxRy-F5xjdQxc1sNt4atr840DtD9Z=L8nBUE-jvDZ9154w@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzxghmoCbrVEYw6BkLt99-i8p+AfNnaqnbeR6m8TkuZBeA@mail.gmail.com> <207a34cc-8b35-4944-9eb3-1661930686ce@www.fastmail.com> <AD911A49-4F70-43E5-BF95-02ECA5411291@fb.com>
In-Reply-To: <AD911A49-4F70-43E5-BF95-02ECA5411291@fb.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 23:45:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CALGR9oZH1Wd8PXOiq_j6YQRBYV1_Amav0xnOSX8YCmGg+1rpWw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PRIORITY stream error?
To: Roberto Peon <fenix@fb.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000542abf0583759742"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/5CBQUSGr4MTwTEZpkzwGs_nweEI>
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: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 23:46:00 -0000

I'm not opposed to being brutal.

One thought though. In this case some of the awkwardness comes about
because we have the same stream type - Control - that has different rules
based on directionality. So why not just have two different stream types?
Client control and sender control. This seems more honest with the
asymmetry.

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, 23:40 Roberto Peon, <fenix@fb.com> wrote:

> As a general principal (sometimes violated):
> If the behavior can be deterministically known to be incorrect, it should
> probably be a connection error.
>
> In cases where the behavior cannot deterministically be known to be
> correct (e.g. because of races/timing), it should not be a connection error.
>
> It seems like being "brutal" when possible (as per above) achieves the
> best interop.
> -=R
>
> On 3/6/19, 2:44 PM, "QUIC on behalf of Martin Thomson" <
> quic-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
>
>     This view (that the error is localized) is one that we took in
> HTTP/2.  In retrospect, I don't think that it has been used as much as you
> would think.  It is far easier to treat violations of spec brutally.
> Indeed, this tends to make the problem more visible, which is a good thing.
>
>     On Thu, Mar 7, 2019, at 09:37, Kazuho Oku wrote:
>     > 2019年3月7日(木) 5:59 Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>:
>     > >
>     > > the very end of Section 4.2.3 of quic-http says:
>     > >
>     > >    PRIORITY frames received by a client MUST be treated as a stream
>     > >    error of type HTTP_UNEXPECTED_FRAME.
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > Elsewhere, this kind of thing is a connection error.
>     >
>     > I am not sure if I agree with the observation. IIUC, the general
>     > approach is to use stream errors when the error does not affect the
>     > entire connection.
>     >
>     > It is reasonable for a client to respond with a stream error when it
>     > observes a PRIORITY frame on a *request* stream.
>     >
>     > That said, I agree that it should be a connection error when the
>     > client receives a PRIORITY frame on a control frame. That's because
> we
>     > cannot have a stream-level error for a control stream, because the
>     > stream can never be closed. I think that's what is missing in the
>     > text.
>     >
>     > FWIW, we do have this "if the error is X then it's a stream-level
>     > error, or if the error is Y then it's a connection-level error" type
>     > of handling. See section 3.2.2 for an example.
>     >
>     > > Making this a  stream error seems problematic; if otherwise valid,
> if this goes out on the control stream a stream error may bring everything
> down anyway?
>     > >
>     > > Should this be a connection error, or am I missing something?
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     > Kazuho Oku
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>