IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Handshake timeout failures?

Nick Banks <nibanks@microsoft.com> Mon, 08 July 2019 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <nibanks@microsoft.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 0D185120324 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 14:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.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 crzyEGGVrqCu for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 14:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM04-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr700095.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.70.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BE38120315 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 14:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Vr7jK+O+QdiuPmDCxnapqUijON+GhuMsmuZkiUF8Tmsv0fvVebTLEyFJprtu1ND1YQxFfGJAdTmyj6erpX+EHXW9ZWl6UxsKmwK7Tt5hRCw/kMXP5/htRxbhD3Nk7BHwyfVMhBP3wLSHM+WIAUOmwvsDt6qjEYj0vwTO2oIWKqTHuv5eZxK4K+IZvE41OGjLWj/brPJapE6TC9P7AFgRSare0Ci2nfjpPVwVExbIpsg7d0Z2Rh3kEdqEj0QvsT+if7NBN77PiQxTB88UL00HQNEyG4fN94YrGQV2bsp0oTvkFIvlCVj0NlrQJCGMtnbosWjnvV0HevHTBy1Iu0sEdw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=uAVxRPDBpYbsNsgSFRyFjKxm2I0aVLo0O2LgOvvx23Q=; b=R51KPezLK9N55+8jusMpoLRlGwwcZsvFYGX5kDg1Eu8NWmnZgSp6GKbuCg+UU/F/GK5f91baO5UeSzS3d6hziRD6/YxpYZgqErwkU9ySLpS+fv4I8quEqTifqWMdaK+XWm8VLPxuVENpxi68BPIvywEKrSCmn9pz8rmVk2xeBuvLwsQcCU6+xBEw3AhdCPE8usuZs5eloZ+wF/1kzsh21JjWR88i/mc+JfXVNtdjDVFc/P4r3ys8LN+hYRjS0VCYgckdK8ClpVAn6lr9E08rJ6u8fO7MRyyF1CQUqj/E4uzDHgZa9LPuDW30Nopw42G4VyOR7WJFyb9kWz70AsN9Zw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1;spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=microsoft.com;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=microsoft.com;dkim=pass header.d=microsoft.com;arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=uAVxRPDBpYbsNsgSFRyFjKxm2I0aVLo0O2LgOvvx23Q=; b=CQIBB5vgmP+rNP7JOe+AVoEY2SLBtS8+u0Xk1VqVnFpmPlVIWxmqSUhwBVE/NQ5oIz3oqYtUCrPYRQdv8BT3V71S6wE3CnURkABlyWHzSgn6mVOmrJr9Dqj6CpRlGyjBa1NEF64i2TG6LobIpvwyyio30rXCmqU2kVzCvg7Ubik=
Received: from BYAPR21MB1334.namprd21.prod.outlook.com (20.179.60.208) by BYAPR21MB1192.namprd21.prod.outlook.com (20.179.56.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2073.2; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 21:53:33 +0000
Received: from BYAPR21MB1334.namprd21.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::95a6:b32d:be2b:70ba]) by BYAPR21MB1334.namprd21.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::95a6:b32d:be2b:70ba%4]) with mapi id 15.20.2094.001; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 21:53:33 +0000
From: Nick Banks <nibanks@microsoft.com>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Handshake timeout failures?
Thread-Topic: Handshake timeout failures?
Thread-Index: AQHVNdUbPbjwKYKI0ka0IL01UxK0H6bBQuj7
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 21:53:33 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR21MB133486ABBED83A6907776708B3F60@BYAPR21MB1334.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAM4esxQJGTjtD91XH1+oko4WS5HV-0yqSgvMaABb79SNN7nzUQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxQJGTjtD91XH1+oko4WS5HV-0yqSgvMaABb79SNN7nzUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=nibanks@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [70.191.217.224]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3a17fdab-7e98-4548-0f89-08d703eeb8fa
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR21MB1192;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR21MB1192:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR21MB11929E1DD88CEAF6561BBC43B3F60@BYAPR21MB1192.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 00922518D8
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(136003)(376002)(396003)(199004)(189003)(3846002)(66946007)(7116003)(2906002)(71190400001)(606006)(4744005)(53546011)(8990500004)(6506007)(5660300002)(486006)(99286004)(14454004)(86362001)(25786009)(256004)(6116002)(91956017)(74316002)(53936002)(6306002)(10290500003)(478600001)(9686003)(7736002)(10090500001)(54896002)(55016002)(236005)(6246003)(6436002)(11346002)(33656002)(8936002)(446003)(186003)(68736007)(26005)(476003)(102836004)(81166006)(81156014)(8676002)(66476007)(316002)(3480700005)(76176011)(66446008)(66556008)(110136005)(66066001)(73956011)(71200400001)(64756008)(7696005)(22452003)(76116006)(52536014)(229853002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR21MB1192; H:BYAPR21MB1334.namprd21.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: Ac6+56y4MbABkIb6gJn+C/kTQDDXI5Z8mhM29Lj1I+JwOGrHcGdfxVShUT23ueSz/kkSFksGSjXC6gU7cxjmzYEXwr9oXF6xAE0TuDDBjReEMUi4IJ2dJ78UscXNRLy12iwA1rdx7gLq7Q3RFj93+gR4CrYtI8a80lOBRBBSNKBUwIX/27OjfrY/uCQAtMmJ+V02y5WbDg+0gJY+3D/N31xa01zGIS4cYOc81YUjGVJelg5qy4utfjdrcklLGU/BbMPP8ix0Nw2sHJacFaRmLkpsXvOHB41QK+3Mji5/iI3+0GxpjzswkIcSy1y/SjbXgdhzvILaT0phw/Lj4lQhuRbLarG28StwNkM/ql2NS1orhGJBk5UliophjD/9G+oVo/7Qrbd/+iwfnKMJnIsrwUIolcDp3jP3D7GpU0C/gR0=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BYAPR21MB133486ABBED83A6907776708B3F60BYAPR21MB1334namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3a17fdab-7e98-4548-0f89-08d703eeb8fa
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Jul 2019 21:53:33.5126 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: nibanks@microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR21MB1192
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/KHU8aVAIOuhTjqikOHFWAcrTPOs>
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 Jul 2019 21:53:46 -0000

The WG talked about dead path timeouts for a little bit (in Tokyo I think) but, at the time, decided to leave it to implementations. I personally think having a dead path timeout description in the text would be a good idea. I’d be happy to revisit the discussion.

- Nick

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
[HxS - 18936 - 16.0.11901.20042]

________________________________
From: QUIC <quic-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 4:34:00 PM
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Handshake timeout failures?

Is there somewhere in the drafts where we provide suggestions about how to time out connections when not yet established? I believe the Idle Timeout section applies specifically to established connections.

This need not be intensely prescriptive, but it would be nice to have some guidelines on how not to fail too quickly.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email