Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Backoff on CONNECTION_CLOSE (#3157)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Mon, 28 October 2019 13:13 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA1612010F for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 06:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SgsNnneHVE_j for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 06:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 011D8120103 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 06:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.19.54]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50408C60746 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 06:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1572268397; bh=fjEVg7ymFKKuoMZ4MyBF9tQmi0L+8hWj6X8/PwhKu2k=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=SeYHZQ8JE9HF5qzO11HMNr4tT1BPYiq4ztGKRG/2wI+2ZTfXTVXkDJJjxvSuGFapJ J4/QxW4fN0AOCD6OVh8+d0PWfA6v4Nv38H9/gxCwvZDODtYi+SCmiTRq29VaDhtE7u +vlnh6Dw6iIBcLjXyOrxFKcjmaZs9YDCpxuK+wyM=
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 06:13:17 -0700
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK74RA5YEIMSRXRSGWF3YQN63EVBNHHB5FPVAE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3157/review/307835286@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3157@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3157@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Backoff on CONNECTION_CLOSE (#3157)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db6e96d4104a_5e473f8a45ecd95c3171a8"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/0cpoA9VzvO3B7V9Zn238aYop4nM>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:13:19 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.



> -containing a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame.  To minimize the state that an endpoint
-maintains for a closing connection, endpoints MAY send the exact same packet.
-However, endpoints SHOULD limit the number of packets they generate containing a
-CONNECTION_CLOSE frame.  For instance, an endpoint could progressively increase
-the number of packets that it receives before sending additional packets or
-increase the time between packets.
+After sending a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame, an endpoint immediately enters the
+closing state.  During the closing period, an endpoint that sends a
+CONNECTION_CLOSE frame SHOULD respond to any packet that it receives with
+another packet containing a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame, until it receives a packet
+that contains a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame.  However, such an endpoint SHOULD limit
+the number of packets it generates containing a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame.  For
+instance, an endpoint could progressively increase the number of packets that it
+receives before sending additional packets or increase the time between packets.
+An endpoint that drops the packet protection keys when entering the closing
+period and therefore being unable to decrypt the incoming packets MUST

exponentially decrease?

-- 
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/3157#discussion_r339554153