Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is CONNECTION_CLOSE ACK-eliciting? (#3097)

ianswett <> Wed, 16 October 2019 04:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC3412085E for <>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:44:07 -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 GMCeQ9qq5_C4 for <>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FD3712006F for <>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4959396036D for <>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571201045; bh=u/GXttJR3kEOpA5AQN3RaGPy2okebAC0lH+IW8kYBgw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=vxhNFd/3nDPUs8zxJqlxeWZLzfWc3ekyL3ScQMyGeY4R5bGIL27aR8jWdaLWiIZnP Pc/E/cjtbXhfvxDN4oshkheZWQUvVP2Btjb78tOG9Pu21mQ8WDjyIALtGMkMZdtOa6 be5sSyJOaezMDm5HfgDOn1kh8KzpEELyeb9ZerRY=
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:44:05 -0700
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3097/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is CONNECTION_CLOSE ACK-eliciting? (#3097)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5da6a01539b52_9733ff0de6cd9641591cc"; 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 04:44:08 -0000

That also ensures the congestion controller never inadvertently blocks sending a CONNECTION_CLOSE, which is consistent with the intent.

If we make this change, I believe APPLICATION_CLOSE needs to be on the list as well.

Now that we discuss ack-eliciting in transport, I think we'd need to change both transport and recovery and mark this design.

So I think this would be a slight improvement, but I an also imagine people claiming that CONNECITON_CLOSE is already special, so there's no need for a change.

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