Re: [hybi] Clarify the role of closing handshake

[Takeshi Yoshino <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 17:41, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Although the Ian Hickson's message did not explain why TCP FIN
> (shutdown(SHUT_WR)) was
> not always possible, it made me realize that I have completely missed cases
> where we have


FYI,
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg01147.html by Maciej
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg01173.html by Jamie
etc.


>
> intermediary nodes (e.g. proxy) along the path which terminate TCP layer.
> (We can not terminate
> TCP connection before end-to-end WS-layer close handshake.)
>
> Thank you for the heads-up, and please accept my apologies for any
> confusion I may have caused.
>
> Ian Fette's text for -06 looks good to me now. If we are to exchange Close
> frames as a normal
> close handshake, then spurious RST issue should also be resolved in the
> normal sequence.
> In abnormal case, the RST issue may prevent the last bit including Close
> frame also from reaching
> the destination, which we need to be aware.
>
>
Good. Thanks,

Gabriel, are you fine with Ian Fette's text for -06?
According to Maciej's message
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg01181.html and others
on the thread, it looks like there was consensus that we should have some
method to deal with RST hazard.

You can still terminate TCP for abandoned WebSocket immediately for some
case where it makes sense though that will be taken as abnormal case above
in Yutaka's message. Making "wait for a Close frame in response" SHOULD is
another option.

Takeshi