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

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 14 May 2019 01:21 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 7BC98120127 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2019 18:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, 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 rY9nC0xUUoI4 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2019 18:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15F2512008C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2019 18:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 18:21:55 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1557796915; bh=iXxFHLuyS8MdimZBzEsUvpS0dPep35vDagzOzYhvLgA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=gbLCoC7fHRBcjpimA9OQ0C7M/7xEHbgtmGipwNAZwOWiNxqJiArYwnpiEXTb37XMU rLMktnCLCCdleB9vXhwlWO0+CBrIgVhhL7fQP8C7VQex6MLBo3mUlxglAj4rqpRuqe 26EXvqIB2KuX65AuYCTVyAigKbrYFXyLUVN1AFN0=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7HYV7KHHECNGLIBLN245FLHEVBNHHBUYT4BY@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/236988529@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_5cda1833301cf_3a7f3fcdc12cd96c891c5"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/FXdCRXU7q0hiU8tohGPcUnMqJaY>
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, 14 May 2019 01:21:58 -0000

ianswett 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

The handshake to 1-RTT transition has an overlap where the peer has both sets of keys, unlike Initial to Handshake, so I think using handshake confirmed as the signal here provides what we want?

-- 
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_r283594362