Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Error space (#96)

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 14:51:21 -0800

Jana's suggestion:  Split this PR in two; the purely-editorial of moving to the different documents, and the substantive of the divided space / renumbering.  Also, congestion control doesn't need its own space.

-- 
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/96#issuecomment-270781087

---

From: janaiyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 15:04:48 -0800

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

-* 0x02: QUIC_STREAM_DATA_AFTER_TERMINATION.  (There were data frames after the a
-  fin or reset.)
+0x8000-0xAFFF:
+: Loss-detection and congestion control error codes.  Defined by the
+  loss-detection and congestion control algorithm currently in use.

I don't think we need this fragment of error codes.

 COMPRESSION_ERROR (0x9):
-: QUIC_DECOMPRESSION_FAILURE (not currently defined in core spec)
+: HTTP_HPACK_DECOMPRESSION_FAILEDin {{http-error-codes}}.

Nit: "_FAILED in"

-- 
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/96#pullrequestreview-15410817

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 20:24:40 -0800

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

Can you explain why?  Is it that congestion control is not supposed to generate errors?  Or do you expect to be able to take whatever error codes are needed from the core transport given that the two docs are more tightly coupled than the others?

-- 
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/96

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 08:50:14 -0800

Well, there currently are no such error codes.  Plus, the peer doesn't know *which* congestion control algorithm you're using, so the point of having a variable lookup table is defeated.  I think I've been convinced that needs to just be folded in with Transport.

Jana made a good case for a host-local range, though, which MUST NOT appear on the wire, but can be used for logging errors and/or returning them in the API.

-- 
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/96#issuecomment-270947180

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 21:57:47 -0800

Split into #130 and #131.

-- 
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/96#issuecomment-271065424

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 21:57:47 -0800

Closed #96.

-- 
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/96#event-914872194