Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Backoff on CONNECTION_CLOSE (#3157)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 29 October 2019 00:24 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 46345120047 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 17:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
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 edOKnH_VSHQf for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 17:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63AD312003E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 17:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-3a0df0f.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-3a0df0f.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.92]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BFD6E01AB for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 17:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1572308679; bh=NCDSmL3zK/hJ0zVq7+Qlrap2wcnafeKNRQhQ9MY33K8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=wkm3uN1spBX4B7pFe4odhq2TVo1kUHWZmomU4mNUYvOp92y04RB2BZcnBogLMwELv 5cBN2QBHIJMirVdrsbjB5WdPk+m4lq8UyI4Mr/FH0RvTG1UAn0rn7KD43ZR6Enb67g 6H4ZA7E9kBi9ssk/2NuNiL98f3oUDYV2DOcOi2GA=
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 17:24:39 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6ZGTLIHK2O4BFMFAV3YTDVPEVBNHHB5FPVAE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3157/review/308219405@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3157@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3157@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Backoff on CONNECTION_CLOSE (#3157)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db786c787737_7df3fc5ff2cd9687138a"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/kJmQMiAhuyOW7OuyqdeLcB7WMto>
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, 29 Oct 2019 00:24:42 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> +closing state.
+
+During the closing period, an endpoint that sends a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame
+SHOULD respond to any incoming packet that can be decrypted with another packet
+containing a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame.  Such an endpoint SHOULD limit the number
+of packets it generates containing a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame.  For instance, an
+endpoint could progressively increase the number of packets that it receives
+before sending additional packets or increase the time between packets.
+
+An endpoint is allowed to drop the packet protection keys when entering the
+closing period ({{draining}}).  However, an endpoint without the packet
+protection keys cannot identify and discard invalid packets.  To avoid creating
+an unwitting amplification attack, such endpoints MUST reduce the frequency with
+which it sends packets containing a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame.
+
+To minimize the state that an endpoint maintains for a closing connection,

I think it makes sense to make this part of the preceding paragraph, since it pertains to cases when the keys are dropped?

-- 
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/3157#pullrequestreview-308219405