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

Martin Thomson <> Wed, 03 June 2020 06:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E473A0B50 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 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_16=1.092, 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 nCuQrEu0B9cZ for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CA643A0B4C for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70622C15EA for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1591166269; bh=bXpY8fpF2kxBGAWU1iU6N1S7gRhIipp9JKzTDlWNwbQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=CSCVw8JR/bRAXXZU4RIEBz1n1Iatevwg+fLa8MlI+a8yOYHefRserH6COSvdi0UPw nhQwzVoRX5JS2okw82QnwS/8nEDf8CoDfg5DwvOcmXaP2UKkJ8O8huuOo6U7t1nsXy 7Vkov54RvnO3+8R7w/ewFa2nxyeCOYL9i6YHf2/I=
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 23:37:49 -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_5ed7453db6fd6_73bb3fd90a6cd9647719d5"; 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: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 06:37:53 -0000

I'm going to re-close the can of worms I half-opened in my earlier comment and take this as editorial.

>From memory, the larger question of how to deal with junk is something we've discussed several times.  If anyone wants to take that up, I'm happy to do that, but let's at least correct the obvious error.

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