IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Rationalise HTTP_WRONG_STREAM and HTTP_UNEXPECTED_FRAME

"Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net> Wed, 07 August 2019 00:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
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 00FA3120304 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=t6AKErUB; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=z6Am0w02
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 w7IDuvnfkCx6 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 613FC1206A9 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF53F21910 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:28:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 06 Aug 2019 20:28:32 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=2tCxvsXiCTSJGq+mAfqm51v3uUoy4mh +SKrX5y9pXWI=; b=t6AKErUBArIc90t/ZgBKL21QW1pSdePoCyTga82Uwp7xRlv aWSsw9TIYO3OMC60hftgpqq2EEYIGOxvX1hXqacPGnFH3DS79S1XJtdGTI9pWW6z 1/DU5wLo4FB6oFWUrQ+GBwKgNuoLFpRoi1VD4yvu65Lm3xMr3H8pNmUy9Ya2sFEi W54TV0fLc/+UTYlW1jp+QvyjamtGwGSLuOT1xJHD4h/Ke2uiPASBr67Ho+bvv+jU t0nPppcXJbc2yvS9jQzy9RkQMqUMDllgoebhFE7G7hE850XCEtDyIhhnbgmAZHsd a+zCVeCfeO6ghnqoYhgXbHOU4brrkvbCMJmSBJQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=2tCxvs XiCTSJGq+mAfqm51v3uUoy4mh+SKrX5y9pXWI=; b=z6Am0w02F2iDD0RGqG1f8V /hrbTU3LtfyWS7WKs5TtotZ62Ydu1+2AQkRArMpmBQhrzfgYqPqhlWJYIdbOazI8 GQXUlW8pZm9HKPR9lbaFmeKS+AyiHyO4/yAm0HWSuKDfeHhU5wRxbGDERMmPD60O qjda0dNMxH8oiRXv6JEwBk0CdGWMl+8BjaTucTsxv9jOJpbCghiJ6/QdKdKW9o7m MCZglx9qeDq10sqcyfE0FNFdNiRd77MKMw8nXbmvHspmosBfd4b1qrABLFf9M17m 4v1WYvBougbVYlEH1b72Jeru6L6bG9/ZW625affH5t8T3kOGsJuFP4pjKCT/LB3Q ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:MBtKXevPlm6JHuLDB7aFa2KBHbAnCKbpOavLGXl6CdX_hVYIptYhvg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudduuddgfeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhtsehloh ifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:MBtKXWyXOQKWZR2izFxux5xXGzpNPgBTX2KGWBovEVvpA7mipIL2CA> <xmx:MBtKXd0qWP6gNb9e1Etpa_uV_ZuDNDo5r9Ij64UvMMwoUZGiauTEoA> <xmx:MBtKXfkXmOBnWfscOx9tdBeSud6mU8rAlib_wAaIQXAbTl1zbgKRtg> <xmx:MBtKXabsysnhhb3EjiotjwxkKypOuoqsGdS3IgsbsqYIv1aplFkgIQ>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 79545E00A2; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:28:32 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.6-808-g930a1a1-fmstable-20190805v2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <608f1832-2ac3-4459-875e-bdc9a86ad8b8@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALGR9ob7=MzO5qt987dpBAxBqnsMRvkrgYz7svktKsMNNhjAdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALGR9ob7=MzO5qt987dpBAxBqnsMRvkrgYz7svktKsMNNhjAdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 10:28:35 +1000
From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: quic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Rationalise HTTP_WRONG_STREAM and HTTP_UNEXPECTED_FRAME
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/MuuEWp66zmJBHRIj0lVgtnYj-NY>
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, 07 Aug 2019 00:28:41 -0000

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, at 10:03, Lucas Pardue wrote:
> As part of the HTTP error analysis and feedback, in June I created 
> issue #2809 "Rationalise HTTP_WRONG_STREAM and HTTP_UNEXPECTED_FRAME" 
> [1]. 

The notion of a signal for "I got a frame that I understood, but it was in the wrong place" is fine.  Good even.  But I don't see a need to have two such signals.  So I'm in favour of collapsing the two.  I don't understand the distinction between these signals as it stands anyway.

However, I'm also concerned that this is going to get wrapped up in the usual compliance test mess.  If I hook up different parsers on different streams and my request stream parser doesn't know about SETTINGS at all, so ignores it when it suddenly appears on a request stream, is the test case going to fail when I don't generate HTTP_FRAME_IN_THE_WRONG_PLACE?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email