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

MikkelFJ <> Tue, 29 October 2019 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3401D120105 for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 02:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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 31yqCBA4y6qk for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 02:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C00CD1200FA for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 02:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EABD6E1556 for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 02:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572341712; bh=nGHxp9em1c3+VfokAJYJQFi4hle4E73Q9k/6l3SnfsI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=t7YJrOxsHIGM55WvT0wgntiVi/xFbHe0ZWQ/ZTN21OaNhcKqpzHj2vUr4npX9mn3j 4fggQpGbGFQaujjUnubBlmijRRovLRB7f1+pNV48QabrKWBcixWk8kMxCaRQoPiUSN gx/qThu9Bzrh9/l1FDmQ8DWjlGY/4Uv59qIzHmn8=
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 02:35:12 -0700
From: MikkelFJ <>
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_5db807d05864a_32113ffc804cd968253264"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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 09:35:16 -0000

So with improved understanding, I think the correct approach is for send a PROTOCOL_VIOLATION the other direction, but since that is kind of pointless, all you can do it is to report a protocol violation the client. It would be wrong to forward the error code because that would promote bad behaviour and assumptions on application level design that might not hold in general.

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