Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Close in response to invalid CONNECTION_CLOSE (#3230)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Tue, 12 November 2019 13:09 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 BDCE412011C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 05:09:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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 iXdaKN1QS8av for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 05:09:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED69C1200DB for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 05:09:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5B86E0A6D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 05:09:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1573564173; bh=C/m0imhWKio5hlQBXbFT+2foPRwO+8s+qQzdQ8iF9LA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=uFDQdIjRiPqjLWSFiXvNhrXwJC6IdwD0N03BaMPv9FVFX6z7M+z4J/cClK9hh3wnH M/urWbCEQrmw0IiPDeXP8zDoIwRTQo/ClEmsqf+BCjGU34pP7J9YqyZn5rRZfNyWkA yH/XGr8HuokF8eErKhR0zVsMZNo/qf0s7+l+Z/cs=
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 05:09:33 -0800
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK47BTXSVHHN2CRZ675327QY3EVBNHHB6EYG2A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3230/review/315519376@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3230@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3230@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Close in response to invalid CONNECTION_CLOSE (#3230)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dcaaf0d2fa67_78b3f99e22cd95c2225369"; 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/8VINmJ9AzrobDkeJmhyjCovRgho>
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: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:09:36 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2709,8 +2710,10 @@ frame risks a peer missing the first such packet.  The only mechanism available
 to an endpoint that continues to receive data for a terminated connection is to
 use the stateless reset process ({{stateless-reset}}).
 
-An endpoint that receives an invalid CONNECTION_CLOSE frame MUST NOT signal the
-existence of the error to its peer.
+An endpoint that receives an invalid CONNECTION_CLOSE frame MUST treat the
+message as being equivalent to a CONNECTION_CLOSE with the INTERNAL_ERROR error
+code.  The endpoint MAY send a single CONNECTION_CLOSE in response, but it MUST
+then enter the draining period; see {{draining}}.
 

Would INTERNAL_ERROR not suggest a locally induced inconsistent state as opposed to an observed remote inconsistent state? If so, I think it is important to make a distinction since it affects who is to blame and consequently where to debug.

-- 
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/3230#pullrequestreview-315519376