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

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 27 May 2020 05:35 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
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 9E6B93A0542 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 22:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 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_28=1.404, 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: 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 aIdnFancaHKj for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 22:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D26F03A00C0 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 22:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F63B52110C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 22:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1590557718; bh=h7l6gbCVjXm/GjM3sObdH+Z8leH2W6ZMUzSITI1JFHc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=sMkUa8BxSu1PQNsdebzchdA9y9syuOLemUGJtb6O2UcqXGTmj0lzgmikZ1Kq3gKuF pU/TfztOM56s2nRjWEWVyCj+49uEKDdFP3alhf+bmjU8r5knhPELXTq3pEEqSqv3Io gLcXNOZsGvxuGSDmpA36N4lx/2o+mhkHa8QjS3JU=
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 22:35:18 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3IE6F7XM6AB3TY64543HORLEVBNHHCKKTHGI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3690/634438868@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3690@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3690@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How to reject a connection attempt (#3690)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ecdfc16c35_5c773ff8e22cd95c81668c"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/Z24IzPw1kyZjYMUwhtfpJn8omTg>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 05:35:21 -0000

I can see why this issue being classified as a design change, though at the same time, I think that #3694 was a good editorial change.

#3694 made things better。We now have an error code for server indicating that it rejected the connection even though nothing seemed to be wrong with the handshake. Without having CONNECTION_REFUSED_ERROR, a client had to guess if PROTOCOL_VIOLATION meant a problem in the handshake, or if it was simply a refusal.

>From now on, on this issue, I hope that we can concentrate on discussing if we want to have more than one error code indicating the specifics of connection refusals (e.g., SERVER_BUSY). Unsurprisingly, my position is that we cannot have specific codes due to the reasons laid out above.

-- 
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/issues/3690#issuecomment-634438868