Return-Path: X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF0313248B for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:32:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pHe5tShjr5vQ for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2-ext5.iad.github.net [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D4D013247E for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:32:41 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1502760761; bh=51+jRkjcbqxIcpgq65OxSE1pfQzmXzdAaOC7l9HDzY8=; h=From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Oy0Xpx6PXdP/npWf01EaFko3ov/xsYjq8cHpVrDPjFXX26GNjHt/7eCWFRZuUPtYX Fd7lpyxF6vqeKlxoyZzcH4orOJWCSpPj9t+Ss555diLm1LHo0Nfd6+WQ4mq9dLLb8n gaAOut+kZZieO5QGZFz6bUH4eE66IG1Xw8p1e7RQ= From: Martin Thomson Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts To: quicwg/base-drafts Cc: Subscribed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Refactor the section on connection termination (#721) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_59924f399c236_52ac3fa0f7f05c30315d8"; 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 X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org Archived-At: X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:45 -0000 ----==_mimepart_59924f399c236_52ac3fa0f7f05c30315d8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 ----==_mimepart_59924f399c236_52ac3fa0f7f05c30315d8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.

In draft-ietf-quic-transport.md:

> +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, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

----==_mimepart_59924f399c236_52ac3fa0f7f05c30315d8--