Re: Conflicting requirements?

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Mon, 08 June 2020 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F01343A0869 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 15:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 sue9EFQaj5K7 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 15:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32f.google.com (mail-wm1-x32f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2B3A3A0867 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 15:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id j198so961670wmj.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 15:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3Gdcj+N1TUDXylBvp4BuJMDKD03WzpU/tCbHYFWa1Bk=; b=TXvJOIKrLMgmdNoscF/0dCkTFpIRUr6ge8897Gla+ss1gWvsOUW4M1kZzFhd0L1ElH NlXWAlTiGFvOzYoVFJLrCebXg9BIzBMOcYwuwP+3ZKSHkQMHtiQGWQJF7xIAWQY+bXVl 8p0makMpsO4a8zbeKXz32Ki898qvgBX2JA4KnM+BJLt+rdY1G9wsWrnD8IthEkNZDA88 zWi01rx0GjajtUpLxmArOfy1NPZ7aeiO3n89Q4A5NJJ32aFjDNAKJ8GK1HaYQSQL3kxD yHXMGzvwYkizQD5PaqEPZwDgyVBjxR8XMMuZTz/DIxWAt2Tk1P4SUTa5kDlfV+VC0U47 /u4g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3Gdcj+N1TUDXylBvp4BuJMDKD03WzpU/tCbHYFWa1Bk=; b=t6gEDXn8c828eKfuVpW7gfFzCBNAidbG2SJhnSBHUp4OOKjGdKJgC3iJluFU2CcNdS /YnMJWMuQldEyqUwY30EFlnE1CCfm857k7RBlCzdGg1uzvW7KNgmANFZo1978I2NxJWh MCkzu20R1SxVMtYaTLBmrWL8qp8d03YiGPjiuReapRrruOoXBA5fwrHRxPtrjQ7cckck d675wQlddR2yYaBuh6C8xYISjaHIzp9MyheIeRIvEDbROuBjoSvW01SmIIsJmUr5/ZWS oc6FXuXtG6bMGKr0KIrJ0TlDqc8/5Uv/PUpe4T4l8EDDJWxUnzMaRjH+IMOzO8zUdwut fcLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530H0yvm48augPb0ACP4sjAauaQkmMGiOWox1gQ2CEcYwYluesKm WPpBQvj5d/V1K4aYzVf+GsRV2VDMEfFtrnzYmV0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzVD+d5wTzBt9+e2EEEZw+220zDsSkBMP/D+w4lpFpar3OkLjnjT8df5NWf07P3DSTAqcNs+0z5FhypEJXaiqU=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:408:: with SMTP id 8mr804717wme.15.1591655342649; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 15:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxSg=oWNLUoNK6Rg6x1KL5NvtWz8qyvk3aa-UWL3HtaodA@mail.gmail.com> <0cde7047-7856-97c5-5e3e-0f0ad380451a@huitema.net> <CAM4esxQ+i=6d6U6iWTe5Ym=2F4-kt5BTqS-Bp=FPM1NBhnN+YA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxQ+i=6d6U6iWTe5Ym=2F4-kt5BTqS-Bp=FPM1NBhnN+YA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 23:28:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9oYv58MPFYyFoPHx1a+SUtH9JJqHVOcvYmQnXF_mn69qOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Conflicting requirements?
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004db4d305a79a23a6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/H_tqbt4E3pzWgV64t55IMS4IG64>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 22:29:08 -0000

The intent of the language is that connection closure is MUST. The choice
of code is a bit more flexible and follows the philosophy that Christian
laid out.

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020, 22:15 Martin Duke, <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not debating the relative merits. We let our customers set this as
> they wish. I'm just asking what the spec is requiring here, and if there's
> an editorial change needed in one of the drafts.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:12 PM Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/8/2020 2:00 PM, Martin Duke wrote:
>>
>> In section 8.1 of quic-transport,
>> When using ALPN, endpoints MUST immediately close a connection (see
>> Section 10.3 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT
>> <https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-tls.html#QUIC-TRANSPORT>])
>> with a no_application_protocol TLS alert (QUIC error code 0x178; see Section
>> 4.10 <https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-tls.html#tls-errors>)
>> if an application protocol is not negotiated.
>>
>> In 4.10 of quic-tls,
>> Endpoints MAY use a generic error code to avoid possibly exposing
>> confidential information.
>>
>> Which one takes precedence? May the server send a generic error when
>> there is no ALPN code?
>>
>>
>> That's a very old debate. More specific the error codes make debugging
>> easier but do expose details of implementation or configuration, so there
>> is a tension. The usual  compromise is that privacy conscious applications
>> can always be configured to send generic error codes.
>>
>> -- Christian Huitema
>>
>