Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Backoff of CONNECTION_CLOSE needs to be a MUST (#3095)

Kazuho Oku <> Mon, 28 October 2019 08:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45831200C5 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 01:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vHJr9wQ4-d6c for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 01:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56EBB120041 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 01:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 01:00:11 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572249611; bh=M0+TU1eehGUA3MiMLcrDwkO2Lr+maecYtWwn38QAR48=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=VxdBg0DyPFHus7HlVlaon1Uavl5YcQQUELnqxsaG4S6JAAAniWQ13vBCneVJGo3NG gwnnjHGdt8ybxpSvofB1UD5HucUO4hnmaQzHEpCyjFzaTTEugAT9VMnAZ8KLjoI3mK cbGHwmv5Sur2DdAqCqMQELAUS8tqyufwaJF6bOD8=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Backoff of CONNECTION_CLOSE needs to be a MUST (#3095)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db6a00b9027b_48693faa576cd9642326a5"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:00:15 -0000

In #3157, I've gone with
* SHOULD limit when you retain packet protection keys (as you can stop sending packets once you receive CONNECTION_CLOSE)
* MUST limit when you drop packet protection keys (as you do not know when to stop)

Re, while we can define a rule based on how endpoints use CIDs, I think I prefer having a rule based on how a stack is implemented (i.e. when you drop packet protection keys) rather than how a stack is configured (i.e. the way CIDs are used). IMO, the latter is harder to test and therefore fragile.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: