Re: Design: Rename FRAME_TOO_LARGE to FRAME_SIZE_ERROR

For now, in the implementation draft, can we keep this focused on whether
or not to rename this one existing error code rather than expand into too
much philosophical debate about error codes in general? We can refine the
error code mechanism if necessary later on.
On Jun 19, 2013 11:00 AM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19 June 2013 10:28, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I thought that was the reason you wanted to put the opaque stuff in the
> body.
>
> The reason I'm pushing back is that it is possible to spend error code
> bits on any amount of subdivision of the PROTOCOL_ERROR space.  Do you
> want one for the case where someone didn't echo the bytes of a PING?
> Or when they decide to send something else rather than continuing a
> HEADERS block?  Or any of the many current and future
> your-implementation-is-broken cases?  Ultimately, this just leads to a
> blowout in error codes, to no good end.
>
>