W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2018

RE: Question about RFC7540 (HTTP/2) section 10.5.1

From: Lucas Pardue <Lucas.Pardue@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 09:08:44 +0000
To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
CC: 安福一樹 <kazuki_yasufuku@dwango.co.jp>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7CF7F94CB496BF4FAB1676F375F9666A3BB1ED6F@bgb01xud1012>
Hi Kazuho,

Kazuho wrote:

>> I’m inclined to think that it is valid for a server to first send a 4XX
>> response, followed by a GOAWAY with ENHANCE_YOUR_CALM. I’d be interested to
>> hear what others think.

> I would argue that there's no merit in sending a H2 level error (i.e.
> ENHANCE_YOUR_CALM) in case you send a HTTP-level error (i.e. 4xx).

That's a good point and I kind of agree. It's just that practically, some of the UA scaffolding for handling Application-layer errors (sometimes referred to as network errors) are not in place or mature. I was reminded recently of the W3C work on Network Error Logging [1] that maybe helps in such cases?

My other thought process was that a single client error may not be cause for a connection error, rather a pattern of behaviour could cause the connection to be closed. However, on reflection in this case from the purest perspective I agree.

Lucas

[1] https://wicg.github.io/network-error-logging/


-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------
Received on Saturday, 7 April 2018 09:09:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:20 UTC