W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: debug field in GOAWAY

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:43:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnX+fh50FWMgCaAAdDEBiManKU6Y6Hgu4w-3MXg-Fpg=yQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Cc: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 21 February 2014 09:32, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk> wrote:
> Agreed, but I don't believe that a free-text field is the way to do
> that. If we really care about making it easy to debug PROTOCOL_ERRORs
> we should be adding subcodes or increasing the number of error codes.
> I would be much more enthusiastically in favour of error subcodes than
> anything else.
>
> Now, if we want to develop a convention of assigning subcodes to
> specific errors and putting them in the debug field, that's an
> acceptable thing to do, but if we think that convention is useful why
> not codify it?

Agree.  In principle.

However, from hard experience on this, getting this right is a lot of
work.  Even if one person is willing to sit down and build a taxonomy
and derive from that a more extensive list of error codes, it's hard.
Primarily, it's hard to get agreement that the taxonomy is right in
both structure and level of detail.  People have different
implementations, with different structures and what makes sense in one
implementation might be completely wrong in another.

Over time, I've concluded that - for standardization - providing the
minimal set of error codes is best.  And by minimal I mean that every
code implies a different action.  For PROTOCOL_ERROR, the worst of our
codes, this action is "fix your broken implementation".  If you can
identify a case that might have a different action, please raise that
as an issue.
Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 17:44:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:24 UTC