IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Are both types of CONNECTION_CLOSE frames permitted during the handshake? (#3713)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Tue, 02 June 2020 23:52 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 0250D3A1129 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 gpa6-eMDbNJ0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 564D33A1136 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-e8b54ca.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-e8b54ca.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE4E9604C6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1591141920; bh=B4n69QIp+nf5Jkg/ArvVk+XZuq6VY51J4w62KP3PPdU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=OVIImUOFRMSRRn+qtobc4kBjDN2T+zYVr9w+1f5lufuirNyiwfSWkJ8HiQ3Zux8jh SSqJsIIfPb/PX7wlyWaynp3C1VnoG4p/oYm1q983ag1lrCWkHYJRDfas5KmpYQGNEZ BP+3dpAzx1dzWEzgVL0AyjAfttHkBSud/qyX7glA=
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 16:52:00 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6GRWFTKKWPZ2HDXRV44LDSBEVBNHHCLBTH5M@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3713/637869668@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3713@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3713@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Are both types of CONNECTION_CLOSE frames permitted during the handshake? (#3713)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ed6e6208ffc2_23153f93292cd96c61236"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/ISML9l8h0aeVFZUmcIoYhmw6hbs>
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, 02 Jun 2020 23:52:09 -0000

The question is directly addressed in the TLS specification. It says _CONNECTION_CLOSE frames signaling errors at the QUIC layer (type 0x1c) MAY appear in any packet number space. CONNECTION_CLOSE frames signaling application errors (type 0x1d) MUST only appear in the application data packet number space._ (https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-tls.html#section-4-4.2).

This was the outcome of several issues that we discussed recently, #3440 was the fix that we applied.

I agree that there is ambiguity in the transport draft and that we'd better have an editorial refinement.

-- 
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/3713#issuecomment-637869668

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email