Re: PRIORITY stream error?

Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> Wed, 06 March 2019 23:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ianswett@google.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 4453C1310ED for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:43:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 syn6GzAovNo1 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:42:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32a.google.com (mail-wm1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (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 BF8C912008A for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:42:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id f3so7605497wmj.4 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:42:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7Oz7opXbbiIf1eCdDtqdC6qOq5fLJDhgdlIhj5HBETs=; b=UekBkp6w7o9ilyMQ4i2and08g5zTpwWK/QJnFCI/U99cywa1/TDM7zOYRZwz0YRfBR OpB0yGhIbC42dDC4aL4VkQ8d9uG+0XS899o/RFZL3K4y+SukqEpeWXp22l7nCFM6GjC2 SbNM6UHF2lQR7wM6Bs9Z39Q8TC+syAjjLInaAOS6oEj4EryKG8X/InW7fMEJ/ZZV53fM 6Q9N1FzUgiUZZYlpmPttn/hPe/Hpu7a2brsiulFplDtpV8GfJ0AX7kS/74LodMFq+M6n AU27LiCi1Wi6aFUYQPSHqyNTric/R6Yt6etlxHk9kYupR+CuFbnyS/xOWJPrMWCNuorc xRJQ==
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=7Oz7opXbbiIf1eCdDtqdC6qOq5fLJDhgdlIhj5HBETs=; b=JgTA/jnM1ZHgGOWUfIqFGHQEsSv998Ioh94E6IyOXAme06o8lEmb4rTEYH0ye0QMgW hPb/57cunDf+SYMerXjKksWqu2+9fOgs+JZjBJwJBP4bMPHjm1MBaZtt8wyTcsEApbCH NhBAlQeKjrPob5FLDnUhCIPsJv/dVB9UXWMIkqnWM8dsx5ETWdwUgrrf4LLC+xsPa75n rUiImG87EEFmdInNGHwaYOSUHH1JVz+M+qxbBegSOgZYLZkykjcGumx3oUlje7mS0QlN USWbcIzTc4qoj7fF+vQJT1Qq4HVcwmUbftes/p67x3yDr0zjmrDgNsyxJTZFbeHzuoqV 3BPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV7unn0oNFKu/p6470L4GyVK6ZgpI7U0OnG9+T4uhZ37NftxTO9 A3MG35ORP9lXtqfq+sbbVWhXa9f2cxWgKoYYbTgNvQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzrsftFAHDtUZJQhbXdK/Va32+DkUptGh3IP1j9xB/B+Rl7Q98qGripVSM1pu4GMJcacvkNB4ewqVGKTuZ9jNg=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:f502:: with SMTP id t2mr3780747wmh.124.1551915777091; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:42:57 -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: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 18:42:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKcm_gMzZuNvd9wZyTSBsaLvpZ4b_p_392wc82jEht56riUUfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PRIORITY stream error?
To: Roberto Peon <fenix@fb.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009ddcd20583758c4b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/F5bkmxgiYJh4v9obgBx58NuLCRI>
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 23:43:01 -0000

I think Roberto's principles make sense.

In this case, those principles imply the connection should be closed.  I
believe that's true of many of the HTTP/3 errors I'll note.

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 6:40 PM 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
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>