Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] suggest easier way of initiating graceful shutdown from the server-side (#3341)

Martin Thomson <> Thu, 16 January 2020 03:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC24120058 for <>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:23:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H5TAZZcqzyaK for <>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:23:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 023CF12002F for <>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:23:48 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:23:47 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579145027; bh=pXhHTG53cTM7rb/Gpzbd66VHo+C1WQ/CZb48t/pV7Jg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=wrgO2G+I3YUOilTZQpA4RnWnOnv0qXKIgMR8pHzz1RtwIKEXT7bqSUxKNPQPkLyOy +NPplwt9bi8/vG5xs9DOLzCU9dSvplgYQi+vabDPLap6CbUfR1ku6Zzm+agjWIccxs jMJGbMTp8COya355yGpUmNrD8JpyqThukiFbavg4=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3341/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] suggest easier way of initiating graceful shutdown from the server-side (#3341)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e1fd7432f449_382b3f7f46acd9605048a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:23:50 -0000

I agree with that.  Stacks aren't obligated to offer any option for fine control over MAX_STREAMS, or any means of introspecting into the value.

I would make another change though.  As a suggestion, this text doesn't need normative force.

> An endpoint that is attempting to gracefully shut down a connection can send a GOAWAY frame with a value set to the maximum possible value (2^62-4 for servers, 2^62-1 for clients).  This ensures that the peer stops creating new requests or pushes.  After allowing time for any in-flight requests (at least one round-trip time), the endpoint can send another GOAWAY frame with an updated value.  In the case that a server does not process some requests, this allows clients to efficiently learn which requests can be retried.

All assuming we go with the suggested outcome of #3129.  Adjust accordingly.

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