IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Split error codes in two

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 06 September 2017 01:10 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@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 13A4D132E3C for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, 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=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 jzVi839RK0n4 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x233.google.com (mail-oi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233]) (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 2CDBB1252BA for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x233.google.com with SMTP id n18so34186528oig.2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Sep 2017 18:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ae/GhB6IvpIVWRW+ziBkO+6KoU8sauueR506QwVGJUs=; b=BcYC1XfsEAEc3xBtyZGoZPOc6pElK63XRvA/E1MgBroMsC96hABACSf0cmA6VuS4/4 N/gJNRI3NHRVTdQVk1xI9yI7vqWlTFszPGw6CdniPa3W+3j+nrpprueFQhk530JjzBOn rf8ZHSoX1BxpQCvdgwyMyKKdt01iip03aJbz2qAhaSw4b2Ts+gUOZpQtVOigiYng77xb 1/44YEiYcAH5zzrw6OnfIg/Eq39yJn3ICXYk6Wk+zCYmEXET2cZpUi8P8wsMZoaROaQI caHvncrrc6W4sxvEVFCY9X3dptdAiYq924uvfTM4MOqGBtBQzRwBRTP9DjRXTj9h7PM0 m8vA==
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=ae/GhB6IvpIVWRW+ziBkO+6KoU8sauueR506QwVGJUs=; b=ro0ZN0HWcAAFJE9aRyORUShgjbXXqs4wGqIViwoFTgGYd6u/vo1u5vWM/Qo14blAq6 djZtofFBnAlPrq5np95+FW7EvigDuAgfhfJ6nNTZyj0ampPwP8I42+e6KJ9Q9TuXceBk hOUVNksA2pUA1XXiirnXF32xw61VPGjji0PdF2AadICnWOoRZWJoNWVRJpUpbJoBgx+O JlCisliqGQtnnswmEXGV7R60VjwUdMsZw5+kwdAXnqRKgW3qeQbYrnfegAr7f0WaO+Hj xNZvYFxFJc86TjEUKYdg5fEMHjX98OE0ZG3vIHRqu+yOJK4L36vBSkLzGcZKg5HyecA/ ZdVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUg2nTwIB8XrLm3y2Q850hmP+/iUinhLjdcNpUOEnRFPXgT6+phO uHsLSd/wK0YKl3Bg5PP700BNHm/5fw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb7FLliX4E6k8RvkjXe6L2KwibB7K0QkU4hocZxVprOfTQtNMidoqemQbtJ4p/vGbZh1+dFvOZa29/C6BBjgYFk=
X-Received: by 10.202.86.69 with SMTP id k66mr975416oib.320.1504660226472; Tue, 05 Sep 2017 18:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.14.77 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAGD1bZa-h0ZVh7kUYQtG3r93eH6TqRXnQ6YXAcscCrCQHk8LeA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnWwGAyHzkST9o9ueVmBw3_TpJun=dv2X+HL2snXSZJgew@mail.gmail.com> <CAAZdMafBWFWtC7A60P1CMm_6nUnbW+_Tx_7re1bAo7Vx2kLdcA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWphw3k=f3==2y3AhexQCj9Py50SLSEH06nN3MN0SCerQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAZdMacHC1HKhXMR4G9CKUOmYyQMsQBab+tampP-PG6n_jJZoA@mail.gmail.com> <CACdeXiLS7W8cJbnT=orHkcd9reH=8QqhOzxWnUEpWZmfcdvd2g@mail.gmail.com> <CAGD1bZa-h0ZVh7kUYQtG3r93eH6TqRXnQ6YXAcscCrCQHk8LeA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 11:10:26 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXMFUP_c+2r6YeJouJXanHd8tFcqDKgU=C9UF0stPcXOw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Split error codes in two
To: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Cc: Nick Harper <nharper@google.com>, Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/lN-2g86_dl43wJYZBWzeJNaSmH4>
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:10:29 -0000

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com> wrote:
> I think this (0-RTT) is a non-issue, but correct me if I'm wrong. This is
> really about sending RST_STREAMs, not about anything else. I agree with
> Victor and Nick that 0-RTT data cannot simply be retransmitted, but I think
> this set of PRs is really about the wire protocol. The way I read it, QUIC
> should never be sending RST_STREAMs of its own accord; that should be an
> application-controlled mechanism. And to be clear, the only place that's not
> true in gQUIC is when a RST_STREAM is received. gQUIC responds immediately
> with a RST_STREAM.

I've spun the 0-RTT discussion off onto another thread.  I think that
there are issues, but hopefully they are minor.

> In the current draft, we've already changed that requirement: the
> application is expected to generate a RST_STREAM in response to a received
> RST_STREAM.

That text was removed with the addition of STOP_SENDING.  (Or at least
I couldn't find it).  I think that's the right answer, because this
will be entirely discretionary on the part of applications.

(I'm not disagreeing with any of your conclusions, just pointing that
out in case you thought that it was an important consideration.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email