Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Idle timeout needs more description and a recommendation (#2602)

Kazuho Oku <> Wed, 10 April 2019 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668301203C3 for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 14:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 58dF3azDI6eV for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 14:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C771E120341 for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 14:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=lTN4z1EWt4aTmNYLBCt9vF/uzWA=; b=wxdlxGbBPF3toFOc wOeqdiOjBegGqGFmvWOPbY5NL/x2HIj6OtGGW85r0LIYyq9JeU/k3qytt/i0K4ZN Hhdgub24+Vt4NvcWzkfMV+n5lSHv4C2Y065m8eKKGqp+LRUdMx8RLXuvkpALkbMB FMUg2NEPM7Lio2oEMTK8xBgtEM8=
Received: by with SMTP id filter0718p1las1-26857-5CAE5A6D-1 2019-04-10 21:04:45.120903758 +0000 UTC m=+159192.191474612
Received: from (unknown []) by (SG) with ESMTP id wgcW9IqDSJSKI1hHf9nolg for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 21:04:44.961 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002C2440913 for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 14:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 21:04:45 +0000
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2602/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Idle timeout needs more description and a recommendation (#2602)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cae5a6cf1e22_7b463ffcae0d45b8935b4"; 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-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak2k9T2phGlt7IQrtWjcbnnRP/KyIqv8ZizgcD aABBXCN9ftp7InU1obRmsIYFD9rR0VQao/0m0E2ycITF7TNxArNglZ1V74v64rsVbvcovg8TZFh9Fb i9ig4hze8v6Ge2NN9eG+sTiFkTvSI//c1oS+l1iQs738oKltpFplmnkGlF4XLeG7FTuuzb8JxnnoZL M=
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: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 21:04:47 -0000

> I like @kazuho's formulation of the min(), but I don't think we need to state what the server or client should do, rather we note the cost of using a dead connection.

To clarify, my point is that the logic and endpoint uses for detecting a potentially dead connection depends on if the peer is allowed to use min() for determining how long the connection state needs to be maintained by the peer.

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