Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use immediate close for application close (#854)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 11 October 2017 05:32 UTC

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 05:32:32 +0000
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab2d9e4c06cd82f9c3fa8b192a66edf2b322eb8d9592cf0000000115f56ef092a169ce0fc28dd9@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/854/335687822@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/854@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/854@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use immediate close for application close (#854)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_59ddacf02199a_4c943fe387fe4f34868a3"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/5-aEQRSvrcr6Y0p87CkDXybKyr0>

I think that the sort of close you have in mind relies on the timeout.  That is, neither side explicitly closes the connection, but they just don't get back to it.

What this covers is more the case where you have agreed to finish a certain set of requests - for example - and you are probably actively exchanging data up to the point where you are done.  This says that if you want to drop the idle timer, you need to send a message (see the issue for more discussion on why that might be needed).

-- 
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/issues/854#issuecomment-335687822

[quicwg/base-drafts] Use immediate close for appl… Martin Thomson
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use immediate close for … Ryan Hamilton
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use immediate close for … Martin Thomson
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use immediate close for … Ryan Hamilton
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use immediate close for … Martin Thomson