Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Application close should be disallowed in Initial or Handshake (#3158)

Kazuho Oku <> Tue, 29 October 2019 04:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 341C012008C for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 21:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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 5eqal8419XRr for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 21:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98293120046 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 21:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4295F121231 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 21:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572321845; bh=IRlI/hHlIZmYcDXSQ+IXvwHPhsn9gXSaF3HiFptUlOU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=wqDfFIIk1bgaAYhPswh0XglXoYpvZNkZB9/xpPetLKTcPckAZ5kC4fj+oyTzCI+LJ rhOToRHfRD43c/KsiV+PFj49GcOXW6hSRtDmmHAwisIWot4c9Y9yiU3m2dL6l5O0gb 8aa27ZzEgQPy/0eOdV8ISVdsv5q9NqScobYJbNb4=
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 21:04:04 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3158/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Application close should be disallowed in Initial or Handshake (#3158)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db7ba34f230d_66f3fc7ab0cd96c489932b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 04:04:07 -0000

@marten-seemann I assume you mean _application_-level CONNECTION_CLOSE in 0-RTT.

I do not have a strong opinion on that, though I might point out that allowing that creates a wired state; a client would might send CONNECTION_CLOSE before it knows if the server has accepted or rejected 0-RTT. The question here is if the client is required to retransmit CONNECTION_CLOSE in 1-RTT  when the server rejects 0-RTT.

Considering that, I think we can just forbid the use of application-close in 0-RTT. The client can either wait for the handshake to complete then send an application-level close in 1-RTT, or it can close the connection using a QUIC-level close during the handshake (without exposing why).

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