Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts To: quicwg/base-drafts Cc: Subscribed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org 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: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 23:52:09 -0000 ----==_mimepart_5ed6e6208ffc2_23153f93292cd96c61236 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 ----==_mimepart_5ed6e6208ffc2_23153f93292cd96c61236 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

----==_mimepart_5ed6e6208ffc2_23153f93292cd96c61236--