Re: PRIORITY stream error?

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Fri, 08 March 2019 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@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 884111277D9 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 13:11:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 S26teI0umJOb for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 13:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42b.google.com (mail-wr1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42b]) (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 514241277CD for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 13:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id d17so22792357wre.10 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 13:11:18 -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=B37yx6nt9EYcVJ0h73ccBkRPV/TLGG2X2s/UJu2Lavg=; b=FQkWThtJiefyXRzin+Yxv80b1ahuFIhbFhk+p9ZGcymH72QB3uJz23ftdl/KExgWzr gLQmL6jV4Ox5CGIhFoW+S4Pl4Bx3bK0XN6GtJT30B4camPzBkWuYW3yqSsGaVKBOH1jS MP5+gAIVIlVEZgSd7eWvroUKyQ6ARh0omycqgqbmMSOyMg3b0OKyF5x3zq/TeU+3nYVT Riu9Qo32a+ifQRHDmShPcW7vyAtp5DJs6AdBdjZaYmHrRMY6l38uIczqzhQEy4njr0pI FioLbhhSY/efrajbAxeqkJXpvpWXMlWl2f1DuXTyuESFoSIHV9olnKBw8d0jr6mhp9GX GeEQ==
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=B37yx6nt9EYcVJ0h73ccBkRPV/TLGG2X2s/UJu2Lavg=; b=tAovHqxBfUc3QqREJ1ujGOkCna6SO65cvuICd+/twJrB7eu5zuy3oTyVBbhGoh8Gty ojhoiFDESeYLrGbhpzuAcxN8c4qREKgEJ+qN7xiJRYmJ9ohSSxwrBoJ31Mnsc5IT8kaM logXeH0rvRDMZKOCsFn9CFDFG6z3qO+F66ds9TxdvpI61qKJM2eNpHF58AEUThlOQyfR GzSefLXMab4kHuPTAgmz87c9Pw1nIJkMCQXGvvhXz+iy2+MXis4gHcjeovFpbIAA2dvo 4EmAVtujG0THiyQHrmMeH/aDKUYQnLWwnKaLB2opM+lYLhTk/qbLrwV84/cw9oI30gi3 qmxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXn+Cr78Y+5Hx5P2+B+n7eclE8/FjD99jfPUhUsDzGaOP1P7D9d Qd2t3CLkHTyQQ5gdzosqOnj5cu0T/fv4qeNwDWc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyOhqXXyk7TljMoqrF/QHVVXgozga+bE2RhZhUHoyY+/SC2/s8vISjbIlzTVm9xKGaEWSNWAqDmHoMcyXnf1FY=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f78e:: with SMTP id q14mr13635484wrp.227.1552079476698; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 13:11:16 -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> <CANatvzwd3rOC2A+B5DZkhGwwK0ZsCdBS4hQwRTKwpOd4TK3x=g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANatvzwd3rOC2A+B5DZkhGwwK0ZsCdBS4hQwRTKwpOd4TK3x=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 13:11:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM4esxTaVSs6VCsCzonqzWxKKkNGbA3nFdb=h8FMJ-V2g=a-OA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PRIORITY stream error?
To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000df346a05839ba912"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/orZ64A9zJ2gC0rM9gKlyoiwCD2w>
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: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 21:11:21 -0000

Filed #2507 and PR #2508.

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:52 PM Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2019年3月7日(木) 7:43 Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I'm fine with changing the approach.
>
> The other issue with using RST_STREAM in response to misbehaving peers
> is that the frame does (did) not provide  a way to signal what has
> actually been wrong. It has stream_id field, but does not have a
> reason_phrase.
>
> I'm supportive to handling all the misbehaviors as connection-level
> errors in H3, using RESET_STREAM purely for communicating abrupt
> termination of the request.
>
> >
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Kazuho Oku
>
>