Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Close in response to invalid CONNECTION_CLOSE (#3230)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 12 November 2019 20:50 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 E7696120839 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:50:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 4ySyAgx6cwlH for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:50:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFFDE12008A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:50:35 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1573591835; bh=ZZuStk+PWye3W928HqVGg6FXX0Zw64ExPZa4pKjPjD8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=moykyRjUlnGlcH6R/VJWtOF89uGRENcIQ3sw9nmP24vJiBnTNEBVYRl7xEit22rtb 6Lkg2NnkyXDWctA2bMpCA7c7NTgBDl4QIMKOrzERqCXkA0OuDz2EFi3sGX9E8loLh/ bxsIpZrkRrBlh8qOqXWZPndV33YFKfwoxQFhC6OA=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK56VFFVCSZUB3I43XF33BGZXEVBNHHB6EYG2A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3230/review/315833394@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3230@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3230@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Close in response to invalid CONNECTION_CLOSE (#3230)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dcb1b1b25531_3c003fd8424cd95c93015"; 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/IWtskHD-RAX69U2r-YsOLF4YYS8>
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, 12 Nov 2019 20:50:38 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2397,12 +2397,13 @@ transmission of CONNECTION_CLOSE frames to validated addresses or drop packets
 without response if the response would be more than three times larger than the
 received packet.
 
-After receiving a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame, endpoints enter the draining state.
-An endpoint that receives a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame MAY send a single packet
-containing a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame before entering the draining state, using a
-CONNECTION_CLOSE frame and a NO_ERROR code if appropriate.  An endpoint MUST NOT
-send further packets, which could result in a constant exchange of
-CONNECTION_CLOSE frames until the closing period on either peer ended.
+After receiving a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame, or an invalid packet that appears to
+contain a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame, endpoints enter the draining state.  An

"or an invalid packet that appears to contain a CONNECTION_CLOSE_ frame," is a pretty big category of potential issues.  Does this need to be called out as separate from the general invalid packet case?

-- 
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/3230#discussion_r345436922