IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Split error codes in two

Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com> Tue, 05 September 2017 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilvv@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 DD4E013292F for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 03:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 e5ndDj9hoRD2 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 03:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (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 9712113292C for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 03:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id i50so10320206qtf.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Sep 2017 03:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bwM5Stfh5Qww/dddNDZXW15ALsm+MKM//dr0B5T4mlU=; b=OA5myZHuuok57Ir4DJ5Bwc9STqsuu45jIAg+bYJbuxnNMn94Y3bF/3Bg52odHDFoXc GAQAQGLtT/YZK8rMwmu1dEY+QG0AqSjV3X4o8IhQgBx6TRfqcjp7/Mel1c+YgPt87on1 BciUptjjiczh4nQ6+hrnPP7nshvFr301fI8QbgzanXECSkxaTFUKKKiwKTpw9V8in0BB vvdp2j+85Ae1ayIEuhKeyqE4LVbI+iYqGoafs6hduMoP6B6L2WwwkQyXF+8VFvftaHIq 0S+9g3CNHInprxeEngUV+aMQdwq1Mxoozj9Jozdf3349iSp57BW5XxWmZMXPwxUbrHcv rnWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bwM5Stfh5Qww/dddNDZXW15ALsm+MKM//dr0B5T4mlU=; b=ZmyXJsXFvkxfEDGBZkxlbdohbiM8Q3ROTo3Lba/4Ne0BZCOJCz/3g0KZ9F22yyQlnI /1PABTaCdsmmbwmiJ+pjte3fodRYVssQKGCRJshC6NmxQtKACO91qKYoK5eQW47AQu5k dIiKRa+Alk6Waaf/S+p3X1e7lVentbCUhN4ANIh0OLCz7MAqp+A8x5G7tJtUUAxFlzaM Dy2XX4Y/dCp+gO107BdKQCFe2FwtHeGESk2VeQIGEs+Fk8xxKKj6NPfQuvFpp4W9WGkS JONixtU5DKUp4Tk5jTmywTVuwcPz6VzTpgAfnCQNNYT/lJHaPDlQybnisQIr6To93OeO GzTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjDrE3uW+3c/pKB6D8jSWNT49COkdlIlb1FlodnOpAl5S7zVbGo ynmZig3aSpGkP3+wM6kx89PrdkAOt6Rv
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb6ONMQtrff682amXTriwvKOxKPOEcSssHpdGw0D9NHmnFj6YfkVzkePFSCWumI3jluXL4m2H9wEFIHdKaPrEc4=
X-Received: by 10.200.42.4 with SMTP id k4mr4786065qtk.268.1504606327609; Tue, 05 Sep 2017 03:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.27.12 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 03:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWwGAyHzkST9o9ueVmBw3_TpJun=dv2X+HL2snXSZJgew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnWwGAyHzkST9o9ueVmBw3_TpJun=dv2X+HL2snXSZJgew@mail.gmail.com>
From: Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 03:12:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAZdMafBWFWtC7A60P1CMm_6nUnbW+_Tx_7re1bAo7Vx2kLdcA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Split error codes in two
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1138fa2aaf7d6505586e753e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/gBU2Fha6W3ZzUdi4xJfjSH-yNjI>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:12:10 -0000

On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The basic idea here - one that I believe that we have agreement on,
> but would like to confirm - is that only applications should be
> cancelling streams.  In short: if the transport kills a stream that
> the application was relying on, the whole application protocol state
> becomes indeterminate.
>

I assume this means only on the wire?  Because you have to close
the streams both when your connection goes down, and when you get
a 0-RTT reject.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email