Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Refactor the section on connection termination (#721)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

martinthomson commented on this pull request.



> +the connection is closed.  A negotiated shutdown might not result in exchanging
+messages that are visible to the transport.
+
+
+### Idle Timeout
+
+A connection that remains idle for longer than the idle timeout (see
+{{transport-parameter-definitions}} becomes closed.  Either peer removes
+connection state if they have neither sent nor received a packet for this time.
+
+The time at which an idle timeout takes effect won't be perfectly synchronized
+on peers.  Endpoints might allow for the possibility that the remote side might
+attempt to send packets before the timeout.  In this case, an endpoint might
+choose to retain enough information to generate a CONNECTION_CLOSE.  Endpoints
+MAY instead rely on sending Public Reset in response to packets that arrive
+after an idle timeout.

I disagree about synchronization.  Say that I set a timeout of 10s.  At 9.8s, one endpoint sends a packet.  That packet gets lost somehow.  Now we have a difference of opinion about when the connection started being "idle" that is almost as long as the timeout duration.

I agree that we might want to have a better or clearer description of how to synchronize these things, but I was aiming to just make it clear that there is a potential problem in synchronization and that a stateless reset is the fallback.

-- 
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/721#discussion_r133101297