- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:34:38 -0700
- To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1... overloading PROTOCOL_ERROR is very very bad. On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On 19 June 2013 09:32, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote: >> > 1 byte per data frame is completely legal at both the framing layer and >> > the >> > application layer. I believe the only illustrating examples here are >> > something like sending a 7 byte PING frame or a 3 byte WINDOW_UPDATE >> > frame. >> > You have received the entire frame, it is just malformed. >> >> So, I have a question: is there an actionable difference between >> FRAME_SIZE_ERROR and PROTOCOL_ERROR. Noting that neither RST_STREAM, >> nor GOAWAY, have a way to indicate which frame was in error, there >> isn't much that is actionable in either case. I believe that the >> action in both cases is the same: go and debug your stack. > > > Actionable difference: it tells you what part of your stack to debug. > PROTOCOL_ERROR is terrible :( Everytime we generate a PROTOCOL_ERROR, we > have felt we wanted to add a debug string (that opaque byte sequence we > discussed earlier) so we could figure out what was wrong. > >> >> >> That leads me to conclude that this is error code proliferation for no >> good reason. >> >
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 17:35:31 UTC