Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How to reject a connection attempt (#3690)

ianswett <> Mon, 25 May 2020 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34E2B3A0E54 for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 10:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 PoCNM7ksd9J6 for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 10:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3EFC3A0E49 for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 10:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A66C6E1333 for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 10:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1590427876; bh=GzcN5XaN4KJZD7eTLX0J8GebBjcSNkyaMrWR7ppOfgY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=whmhpdRNskV1/Kx+sZ1OHKQ7I3eAo6rPBRqR9zYfPbjBlhkZVJIPlQgauZo8d0+gH kMV6lLKVVO9s4wMJG9y2mVm0N5TrZCNPWC4BBWYN18TT31dU4XHDKfONm2ZEDHxUSt z2qOnwjXud1YqdU7sKjjrI4b90cEZdVvMCRxlQeg=
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 10:31:16 -0700
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3690/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How to reject a connection attempt (#3690)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ecc00e49f57_4bb13fd42a4cd9641638e0"; 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: Mon, 25 May 2020 17:31:21 -0000

@kazuho I believe it's up to the client as to how unauthenticated signals are used.

There are a lot of ways to interrupt a QUIC handshake early on, and this is one of many.

Chrome does exponential backoff with a 5 minute time period anytime the handshake fails, whether it's due to VN, connection close, handshake timeout, etc.  In practice, VN and Alt-Svc typically agree, so VN is very rare and connection closes are more common.

I can't argue Chrome's algorithm is optimal, but if handshakes failed in the recent past, it seems sub-optimal to try QUIC again immediately.

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