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

Kazuho Oku <> Wed, 30 October 2019 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26F21200F3 for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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 Vumxpx4kJtq8 for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BDB6120018 for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:45:28 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572479128; bh=i5EyPjoxSsrfFm2i66ATSfwUVgLoyIg3BJ/fgMGbMJ4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=sUmxafKP/FevID8gMdQyKDrViKMzDgTVyXD1mo4q9ee13u4hfWq2a89JfsFfFLpHy gvQH9y7QdlqvIjHwWhKOmP65Iu9eoT6C9rtlGqXIK+9ieaRTvxg8ZCC18nN+79VW+4 kOVsabCuWNiJ5eYoUvmktj0svP39Siyvaaa1czJM=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
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_5dba20985e7de_26183fb081ccd960245975"; 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
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, 30 Oct 2019 23:45:31 -0000

> Though, I'd like to point out, there's nothing preventing an implementation from doing it anyways.

I agree with that observation.

I think the specification does not clarify what should be done when a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame is invalid. For example, we do not define how an endpoint should react when it receives a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame with a Reason that goes beyond the end of the packet payload.

I think there are two logical ways of handing the situation:
* a) An endpoint that receives an invalid CONNECTION_CLOSE frame acts as if it received a valid CONNECTION_CLOSE frame.
* b) An endpoint that receives an invalid CONNECTION_CLOSE frame responds with a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame carrying an appropriate error code.

We can mandate either a or b, or leave it up to the implementors (saying nothing in the text). Leaving it unspecified is a valid option here because the connection would promptly close regardless.

Anyways, I think the problem deserves a separate issue, _if_ some of us are interested in mandating a specific behavior. Personally, I do not care.

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