Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify server CONNECTION_CLOSE with Handshake (#2688)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Mon, 13 May 2019 00:29 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 66D8D1200F8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 May 2019 17:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 mRGDFa3pDlMI for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 May 2019 17:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1CEE1200F4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 May 2019 17:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 17:29:40 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1557707380; bh=on6dDWZd2/mYHyj/7++tIIPQBcqiqzTLLxqG/M6Yf2o=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=rJEScRH8n7SaQ/ZVQ1kfRqw0p3AdMWMEDnfe7PKsIsOhdmVsSdHH/Knh04p8tpbCP cjf8T6UdNCK6+YxnT+H+ooGEe+ltpoKz3kK1hCVyLrHLxyQPVgdqZuU+80ljxtV5Tu bptPRlL08kv4WfMzIweHu0tc4BQm0kNQZgyUFwY8=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK47MPDUA3GASECCD6N24XWPJEVBNHHBUYT4BY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2688/review/236444841@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2688@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2688@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify server CONNECTION_CLOSE with Handshake (#2688)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cd8ba748b606_54b83fa4ed8cd96814701d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/17iut9gLXyL2_1I_MkjHZzHFtZI>
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, 13 May 2019 00:29:43 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2307,10 +2307,14 @@ signal closure.
 If the connection has been successfully established, endpoints MUST send any
 CONNECTION_CLOSE frames in a 1-RTT packet.  Prior to connection establishment a
 peer might not have 1-RTT keys, so endpoints SHOULD send CONNECTION_CLOSE frames
-in a Handshake packet.  If the endpoint does not have Handshake keys, or it is
-not certain that the peer has Handshake keys, it MAY send CONNECTION_CLOSE
-frames in an Initial packet.  If multiple packets are sent, they can be
-coalesced (see {{packet-coalesce}}) to facilitate retransmission.
+in a Handshake packet.  If the endpoint does not have Handshake keys, it SHOULD
+send CONNECTION_CLOSE frames in an Initial packet.
+
+The server may not know whether the client has Handshake keys.  In order to

Ahh, the two docs blur together in my mind.  This is OK.  I would suggest that you need to address both transitions here though.  The transition to Handshake and the transition to 1-RTT have the same sort of uncertainty.

> @@ -2307,10 +2307,14 @@ signal closure.
 If the connection has been successfully established, endpoints MUST send any
 CONNECTION_CLOSE frames in a 1-RTT packet.  Prior to connection establishment a
 peer might not have 1-RTT keys, so endpoints SHOULD send CONNECTION_CLOSE frames
-in a Handshake packet.  If the endpoint does not have Handshake keys, or it is
-not certain that the peer has Handshake keys, it MAY send CONNECTION_CLOSE
-frames in an Initial packet.  If multiple packets are sent, they can be
-coalesced (see {{packet-coalesce}}) to facilitate retransmission.
+in a Handshake packet.  If the endpoint does not have Handshake keys, it SHOULD
+send CONNECTION_CLOSE frames in an Initial packet.
+
+The server may not know whether the client has Handshake keys.  In order to
+guarantee a CONNECTION_CLOSE is processed, it SHOULD send a CONNECTION_CLOSE
+in both Handshake and Initial, because the client discards Initial keys as soon
+as it has Handshake keys. If multiple packets are sent, they can be coalesced
+(see {{packet-coalesce}}).

Don't sound so uncertain :)  I think that the fix is good.

And we'd (collectively) be crazy if we didn't take #2673.

-- 
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/2688#discussion_r283162838