Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Backoff of CONNECTION_CLOSE needs to be a MUST (#3095)

ianswett <> Wed, 16 October 2019 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FFA12022E for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id njVHodFK1UUO for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C3E31208A4 for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:55:50 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571237751; bh=WDO5gRvlNNXnbGZrx/JihQiCqUPrS2ADq1/pMbAI780=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=aPbf1ZcgZGxnj38qu/lh1jJQfa5wAtcGFJHxrXAT2fh7K0jj2J830gYl1QIohFWlE XYEaREd6lmLGnJPrq99TtrpOJ5FMuTavHQr4pDpR9xUDWz8hMrdMYeN3GTqajNBozB wCQ3ArgD6/hrYacJ0j4xFrkvQA0192Gmez+9ptw0=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Backoff of CONNECTION_CLOSE needs to be a MUST (#3095)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5da72f76de9fa_1ad33fbcd5acd95c140285"; 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
Archived-At: <>
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: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 14:55:57 -0000

In this case, I believe both sides are in the server role.  Servers don't need to pad Initial packets and servers drop Initials less than 1200 bytes, so I believe the other 'Server' would drop the Initial CONNECTION_CLOSE and this would stop quickly.

However, if an implementation padded all Initials, this could be a problem, so more clarity on Initial padding may be necessary?  ie: Servers SHOULD NOT pad Initial packets containing only CONNECTION_CLOSE.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: