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

Nick Banks <> Tue, 29 October 2019 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24BBA120133 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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 XxeKprlUW2u3 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC4B3120033 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:28:20 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572316100; bh=sL/UAeoEHchXc4KclJn7sweh8KdPGc/Q+y0hPKniroQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=zV4pgP/Dmm5aS+Xk3A46MqEYKoRbN9iUBMRzrqoSJOToYnF68sFillq+izNtNswVi MBfP5YV1WdC5JYnmVa05LrFFtdgZroHYA913hp9n8pB6QFh7hE1mlrJ7njnO9ITaE2 fPdRZcKhwYrD7xvqAF0y3WMTe7TvrZlnD6y28n9g=
From: Nick Banks <>
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_5db7a3c4de57e_5f6a3fe8520cd96818434b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
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 02:28:23 -0000

I can't seem to find the discussion right now. I believe a lot of it was in person at the time as well. Things may be difficult in some scenarios, but we can leave the decision on how to handle things up to the application layer. For the 0-RTT scenario, you can use a generic application error code. There's no ALPN ambiguity there, right, since they have to use the same one as previous? I don't think we should add extra restrictions at the transport layer.

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