IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Closing on CONNECTION_CLOSE

Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> Thu, 27 July 2017 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ianswett@google.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 E6A15131B79 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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=google.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 o_CrQB9bqxUQ for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (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 3BD2C12ECEF for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id x125so107740494ywa.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oZdbX2o7B4Np71RNnEQdjMfAQTPGrTtA1z1M997+MXA=; b=AtBiDpjqF9RTJ32h3yhkDJe+weZVCzyqImXgbFUErSOF+IPik7Y/Ulg1wMr/0ePsmE lpPumVG2ClouIbK7ouATQkXVXNvjYC5iFDEdgBSwZo53zCAniiswrvnxkFYeqFcDKrvr 1pwouzdFyLVMaOK5LPdtY5ZtzEIl8LDD0QPBuVegvxAEq0YaAXlXeZA0XquBK1aS1Suv f8lit6UEsda+heHfSHNPbuDFVhQAZY/tgfQ0s9Uqf3LSy3lQgiUXIiNQXyxWBPm47XKV saK331WOsXScjZoUdSYUWMxsaqwv0ZT8kv5PhT5OowA+wsElUbNxhF3KhbH1BWPvRuv1 nT4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oZdbX2o7B4Np71RNnEQdjMfAQTPGrTtA1z1M997+MXA=; b=bDP6AlS4pJX+29XiubiuX+Kq1Qv31XzunrzUSDKF3Ww+yNlwBemd6r6UEAWjQra7fj UQHWr7wjxJq8hmcOeHNWvPefji+uLYRasOz2Xw4m9KS7Xx0zQ44JsLFqoGoH7+FnYKml kxJdFuJ7y6vNU4melhM5rNntRvUSJJCBvy0kQtDPOO9dlCcrWu10ziPMunXFiUO9J4eK 0R3QU+KRHhSaZ9bovKUHbJzsVMkgaLwUXBU7pAocTXUH76t4AaiSF+nZRfDJpMispClE McAIKYhYYfFLPzOvn86XH3WzYKBatUNPsC1VvkBzxfDQU4KVsaGdtWflbip1INdhEie2 9ZLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1125tLTc85S+74+O/rd0NRQ+GP8DlyPqLFG6e0AI2ab5Ou1mwZ4c VRTENt50A6jcS9TXPkugkxPSXzLwo6o0
X-Received: by 10.37.65.201 with SMTP id o192mr3736387yba.264.1501167083302; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.217.137 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <DB5PR07MB1237960D04442972441D9B8B84BE0@DB5PR07MB1237.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CABcZeBP_Xh1QC9Qxhy5HYiMiTfknPs7Yp7+X_KnQE1O-juxJ5g@mail.gmail.com> <cb7caadd-73bd-6505-7a57-4b0271fb66d2@huitema.net> <DB5PR07MB1237960D04442972441D9B8B84BE0@DB5PR07MB1237.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:51:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKcm_gOSSWOiY7S3KCW4674KO76PxoFmcTbFSsbO-71aQmCXHg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Closing on CONNECTION_CLOSE
To: "Swindells, Thomas (Nokia - GB/Cambridge, UK)" <thomas.swindells@nokia.com>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c02d20c0164505554db279"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/M3L_V9qpxfra6ST4zUuDDKGXA3c>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:51:26 -0000

I would recommend sending an identical packet every time, since there's no
value to encrypting a new one with a new packet number, but it increases
the amount of state you have to keep and the CPU to respond to spurious
packets.

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Swindells, Thomas (Nokia - GB/Cambridge,
UK) <thomas.swindells@nokia.com> wrote:

> > > However, this isn't that big a deal, because as
> > > noted above, you can throw away the connection and just send a stored
> > > packet, or alternately, just send public reset (or just go silent).
> Should/would you have to generate a newly encrypted packet with a new
> packet number each time (as per other retransmissions)?
> Or is this a special case because it is the final packet and so doesn't
> matter if it is duplicated?
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email