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

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Wed, 15 May 2019 05:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 E690812027B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2019 22:43:26 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 FrtU1GnJdDXs for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2019 22:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from o3.sgmail.github.com (o3.sgmail.github.com [192.254.112.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3678312027E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2019 22:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=DFVPl23GSIyUMcpWlZ26MB2+00A=; b=dYfB7a+I9jjTuDMY l12H93ZfJ+8iWaWpt0pTpa9gnmOMvMKBpbWnShnwZ70Xhdjvli18amEGNHcg8jSI h2Z7wDjl+MXsD+bU88OzhFImGBLJz/DGA6Ibur1WtDySkQvnSGcjqvqyzC8YtflY sPqa+SYn4z0Lqeo5EJ6sf2PvQ1g=
Received: by filter1115p1las1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter1115p1las1-19643-5CDBA6E2-15 2019-05-15 05:42:58.721768511 +0000 UTC m=+115427.732393899
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) by ismtpd0030p1iad2.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id U9_03ZJ9R6u_JvxXxYTOdQ for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2019 05:42:58.595 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 05:42:58 +0000
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2BM6NA65ZV5AEEHA525DMTTEVBNHHBUYT4BY@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/237616302@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_5cdba6b9e4718_2d493f83ebacd95c388969"; 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
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak1D8MLhFgB9aUybul+Dt1j931B2NC9Fvhml+f 3XHTTzg6ScpsjzcUDeYk+Avz714W81h9C1XhBYWdbFAkGHexharSnNUoXE/tt5H2Bhn4FuU1uInHZT x5e4rswHGnYU8qj4hJJRKdLlR1tNyhxTp5m+eR/XIxJKDkrWK5PHOfd9KP7lpQTHuiaxBx6xxZXwKI w=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/CmJY9-8d9ET5FS_GU0E0oQwOuRw>
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: Wed, 15 May 2019 05:43:27 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2304,13 +2304,25 @@ the application requests that the connection be closed.  The application
 protocol can use an CONNECTION_CLOSE frame with an appropriate error code to
 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.
+When sending CONNECTION_CLOSE, the goal is to ensure that a peer will process
+the frame.  Generally, this means sending the frame in a packet with the highest
+level of packet protection to avoid the packet being discarded.  However, during
+the handshake, it is possible that more advanced packet protection keys are not
+available to a peer, so the frame MAY be replicated in a packet that uses a
+lower packet protection level.

This paragraph doesn't really say anything that the next paragraph doesn't cover. Also, `a peer` sounds like an endpoint can have multiple peers.

> @@ -2304,13 +2304,25 @@ the application requests that the connection be closed.  The application
 protocol can use an CONNECTION_CLOSE frame with an appropriate error code to
 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.
+When sending CONNECTION_CLOSE, the goal is to ensure that a peer will process
+the frame.  Generally, this means sending the frame in a packet with the highest
+level of packet protection to avoid the packet being discarded.  However, during
+the handshake, it is possible that more advanced packet protection keys are not
+available to a peer, so the frame MAY be replicated in a packet that uses a
+lower packet protection level.
+
+If the handshake is confirmed, endpoints MUST send any CONNECTION_CLOSE frames

```suggestion
When the handshake is confirmed, an endpoint MUST send any CONNECTION_CLOSE frames
```

> -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.
+When sending CONNECTION_CLOSE, the goal is to ensure that a peer will process
+the frame.  Generally, this means sending the frame in a packet with the highest
+level of packet protection to avoid the packet being discarded.  However, during
+the handshake, it is possible that more advanced packet protection keys are not
+available to a peer, so the frame MAY be replicated in a packet that uses a
+lower packet protection level.
+
+If the handshake is confirmed, endpoints MUST send any CONNECTION_CLOSE frames
+in a 1-RTT packet.  Prior to handshake confirmation, a peer might not have
+1-RTT keys, so endpoints SHOULD send CONNECTION_CLOSE frames in a Handshake

```suggestion
1-RTT keys, so the endpoint SHOULD send CONNECTION_CLOSE frames in a Handshake
```

> -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.
+When sending CONNECTION_CLOSE, the goal is to ensure that a peer will process
+the frame.  Generally, this means sending the frame in a packet with the highest
+level of packet protection to avoid the packet being discarded.  However, during
+the handshake, it is possible that more advanced packet protection keys are not
+available to a peer, so the frame MAY be replicated in a packet that uses a
+lower packet protection level.
+
+If the handshake is confirmed, endpoints MUST send any CONNECTION_CLOSE frames
+in a 1-RTT packet.  Prior to handshake confirmation, a peer might not have

```suggestion
in a 1-RTT packet.  Prior to handshake confirmation, the peer might not have
```

-- 
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#pullrequestreview-237616302