Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Are both types of CONNECTION_CLOSE frames permitted during the handshake? (#3713)

Martin Thomson <> Tue, 02 June 2020 23:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BAE93A112A for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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_24=1.618, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id otYMaQ9DwC77 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 002043A112C for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94AA99604A2 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1591141914; bh=yaTfK7wstSFvRskZu9p+AViQc4pY0xF45cLW0D5BrPc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=MxzqulS8AV1aEutigh1Su7IlfD8VRWpktrBttS9+YZwM+h2lsugKPIgmRev3IM/iw ncl9XLRMP1cQElPkl1ZOoXmlnicU5ocoExm1yKZ8u4XIUYQlaC6MgEF0+tWrlDt46Y 1fqY09t+D9IcWLANX3EYzZ/lQFxQjcr3bAn2zFIA=
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 16:51:54 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3713/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Are both types of CONNECTION_CLOSE frames permitted during the handshake? (#3713)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ed6e61a84627_712c3fabe6ecd96c62536"; 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
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, 02 Jun 2020 23:52:09 -0000

So on the surface, there is no inconsistency: the two sections permit CONNECTION_CLOSE.

But the question about the different types of CONNECTION_CLOSE is more relevant than @janaiyengar's response might imply.  We currently require that CONNECTION_CLOSE of type 0x1d (application close) is not sent in Initial or Handshake packets.  So that's a drafting error, and we might reasonably take this as an editorial issue.

However, if the question is about what a reaction to receiving an application CONNECTION_CLOSE in one of those packets, we might consider a different posture.

If you get an application CONNECTION_CLOSE in an Initial packet that is otherwise valid, you probably want to drop the connection.  And you probably don't want to start sending CONNECTION_CLOSE in response every time, because that leads to madness.  But this is a general problem: if you detect and error and that error keeps being repeated, it probably isn't a good idea to generate a CONNECTION_CLOSE in response to every infraction.

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