Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] GOAWAY means no more (#3338)

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:41:45 -0800

Proposed update to #3129 to get better H2 parity.  **Note:**  This is a PR on Alan&#39;s PR, rather than a replacement PR.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338

-- Commit Summary --

  * GOAWAY means no more, like H2

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-http.md (24)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:45:57 -0800

@MikeBishop pushed 1 commit.

6733c8705cc1823b02939a0341628b7bb9dde486  Clarify the prohibition

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338/files/9dc92e45e9032c38176bf15e3aaeb1b3eaeb11ac..6733c8705cc1823b02939a0341628b7bb9dde486

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:55:20 -0800

199b3094766a5e4236db7327956dfc0edf2395d4  Wordsmith

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338/files/6733c8705cc1823b02939a0341628b7bb9dde486..199b3094766a5e4236db7327956dfc0edf2395d4

---

From: Kazuho Oku <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 05:30:11 -0800

kazuho commented on this pull request.

> @@ -696,18 +696,19 @@ requests or pushes were accepted prior to the connection shutdown.  Endpoints
 SHOULD abruptly terminate any requests or pushes that have identifiers greater
 than or equal to the smallest identifier sent in a GOAWAY frame.
 
-Endpoints MUST NOT initiate new requests or pushes on the connection with an
-identifier greater than or equal to the smallest identifier received in a GOAWAY
-frame.  Clients MAY establish a new connection to send additional requests.
+Endpoints MUST NOT initiate new requests or promise new pushes on the connection
+after receipt of a GOAWAY from the peer.  Clients MAY establish a new connection

Maybe change GOAWAY to "GOAWAY frame"? I think we consistently use the latter.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338#pullrequestreview-342528843

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 07:17:35 -0800

@MikeBishop pushed 2 commits.

6cc93ffe9c5e0e7e4d9a5d659976fc1f63183a95  Use 'GOAWAY frame' consistently
8c86dfe8cee369b2b37ffea37221dbaba88c1e77  Clarify previously-promised

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338/files/199b3094766a5e4236db7327956dfc0edf2395d4..8c86dfe8cee369b2b37ffea37221dbaba88c1e77

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 07:17:57 -0800

MikeBishop commented on this pull request.

Thanks -- I found a few other places where just "GOAWAY" was used, and fixed them as well.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338#discussion_r366397374

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:07:46 -0800

ianswett approved this pull request.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338#pullrequestreview-342838783

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 15:33:30 -0800

LPardue commented on this pull request.

> +Before closing the connection, a GOAWAY frame MAY be sent to allow the client to
+retry some requests.  Including the GOAWAY frame in the same packet as the QUIC
 CONNECTION_CLOSE frame improves the chances of the frame being received by
 clients.

With the parallel changes and discussion around GOAWAY I'm really struggling to understand the suggestion of `including the GOAWAY frame in the same packet as the QUIC CONNECTION_CLOSE` 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338#pullrequestreview-342908444

---

From: afrind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:19:06 -0800

afrind commented on this pull request.

I think the text is suggesting that if they are in different packets and the CONNECTION_CLOSE arrives first, then the GOAWAY might be ignored?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338#discussion_r366655357

---

From: afrind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:21:27 -0800

afrind approved this pull request.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338#pullrequestreview-342941115

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:29:03 -0800

ianswett commented on this pull request.

The intent is: If a client receives a GOAWAY first, it knows what it can retry, hence the value of putting both frames in a single packet.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338#discussion_r366657650

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:30:00 -0800

We're mixing together processing of a QUIC frame and an application-layer frame delivered inside of STREAM frames. I'm not sure trying to make assertions on the ordering of those things is the best way to do it. My I should open this out as a separate issue.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338#discussion_r366657847

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:37:38 -0800

What if they are in the same packet but the STREAM frame comes after the CONNECTION_CLOSE?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338#discussion_r366659458

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:52:18 -0800

Then likely the CONNECTION_CLOSE will be processed before the GOAWAY and the receiver will process the CONNECTION_CLOSE and ignore the GOAWAY.  I think that's how this has to work, but maybe I'm wrong?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338#discussion_r366662606

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 18:00:18 -0800

I think you're right. Thinking some more, I think the phrasing could be read to say that inclusion improves the probability of delivery, which is odd. When actually what it is trying to articulate is that processing order has some importance. However, just because the data arrives at the same point in time doesn't mean much IMO, that GOAWAY frame could just as well be blocked by other stuff waiting to be restransmitted on the stream.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338#discussion_r366664219

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 08:26:21 -0800

Admittedly, it's best effort.  This also implies that there might be value in permitting the application layer to drain whatever data has arrived, even if a CONNECTION_CLOSE has also been received.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338#discussion_r366974294

---

From: afrind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:00:21 -0800

Merged #3338 into client-goaway.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3338#event-2952469113