Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] CONNECTION_CLOSE in Handshake too (#3293)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Tue, 10 December 2019 01:27 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 940AA12002F for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 17:27:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 YpJIJLu47Dly for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 17:27:31 -0800 (PST)
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 20163120020 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 17:27:31 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 17:27:29 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1575941249; bh=T2DBqMlEWk8FPpRfSuEjTFkTj3CYV1ihriqo8AekMr8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=NmbBGrVSDOEPX/i5y/eNtV5goBQqC3wYmISmyyM3qGmXH6JC6rEi7pcvB5OQtJNoP S3iQlP2mY2fjSt8cLXr8IIaiEfp5lUPS4hFppr/4cM4SKK6rLA3VQSQqceiEEypQgc oVZaeFtmctb/ij0PvQKtQrAhABaVLu4AMKzIgE58=
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK72FKQMGW6PJG7X3IV37QTQDEVBNHHB72M6BM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3293/review/329539927@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3293@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3293@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] CONNECTION_CLOSE in Handshake too (#3293)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5deef481d1cbd_1db03f93506cd9641220b0"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/_IBSKuDRfL0Qsk4mnJwWBu2g2sk>
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 01:27:34 -0000

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2481,12 +2481,15 @@ have 1-RTT keys, so the endpoint SHOULD send CONNECTION_CLOSE frames in a
 Handshake packet.  If the endpoint does not have Handshake keys, it SHOULD send
 CONNECTION_CLOSE frames in an Initial packet.
 
-A client will always know whether the server has Handshake keys
-(see {{discard-initial}}), but it is possible that a server does not know
-whether the client has Handshake keys.  Under these circumstances, a server
-SHOULD send a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame in both Handshake and Initial packets
-to ensure that at least one of them is processable by the client.  These
-packets can be coalesced into a single UDP datagram (see {{packet-coalesce}}).
+A client will always know whether the server has Handshake keys (see
+{{discard-initial}}), but it is possible that a server does not know whether the
+client has Handshake keys.  Under these circumstances, a server SHOULD send a
+CONNECTION_CLOSE frame in both Handshake and Initial packets to ensure that at
+least one of them is processable by the client.  Similarly, a peer might be
+unable to read 1-RTT packets, so an endpoint SHOULD send CONNECTION_CLOSE in
+Handshake packets prior to confirming the handshake; see Section 4.1.2 of

Should this be Handshake _and_ 1-RTT, because the peer might have dropped its Handshake keys?

-- 
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/3293#pullrequestreview-329539927