IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is CONNECTION_CLOSE frame Ack-eliciting？

Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> Wed, 05 June 2019 13:48 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 4D77B12006E for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 06:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] 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 zj5SICBeJw4r for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 06:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (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 282A1120046 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 06:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id n4so14295737wrw.13 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Jun 2019 06:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eyggxK8KlyDBa+E86i/kXokt23SStoBkSgfb3HHEipw=; b=XvKd6uhmEROr8jnvf6NuM4oaF2TCp6gExvbpOGqIfoKivX6nad3hBehbp7I6+qJ6ev /Z1qwwhOUeSGPqbvbcBI3zCFTF4Gr34AfqHaUOOYUmGP1N5AEBGgeMCfbf17adqCzQJv i/vSm9uco2IIE64gvJFspkL14gMM7F0gt96+gZlIMH7XQFctpP+Vb4EGaWEgDkgxyyAs v2D/3GCKgtlY47VlYprUcb7UEFDWyFe7735S5GDhOLa8JnFjXO2Db+8ig+hkZTByRdTa +KmoRVOB6ozFXgNgL3/hXirq43jJLNNDOmOgg+K1PSEsxpbH5QP9WLfHwa0lY3aDxqAn lPKQ==
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=eyggxK8KlyDBa+E86i/kXokt23SStoBkSgfb3HHEipw=; b=CP7dBDf1J8Ywl1Bn8eIZF5L0I8rs4rm2//K/6McR7vw1UU+YyJe7TsPHcWupIa8GZL fOpzL3JZ3+2DVRwmrL60P1bjmSKvS0LFUjfaMHW6tNo8B2criahEIl6WlnsHtV+/+hSr DJJL3NoOrEYgV8pIFIiURRrQR5e2AqRUk9bqfotneIWTF1sI6isQbuIbjAwfbZ88fSmt NzwBQIrOpqWbXS7QZTtKYCyLrtkMVqlkDQ31t8JVLEREubfs7De28jqUcuXpxmNoulSb t3l+H7HhcGdQZDKuN2iQJnl3ZBjW9ZdxTQ0q1EumusZimUhy9qNF/FlYCOFjULQp2kcW z4+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXaSFsG3w10PuFr77cTByqJg9uRf6vWQVeqtLSQ6PsP8BS/bp5d /7sx2D8aFrdrFAWyUZlFsj6CLI0sV8Wlus1Q3g+Tpg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzX/AjKEua3IeXrA6baK1MEGLVlrkgeY3ysnHEUqPXD8OJEjPNBQmOlyh8yAL2rhMT4QDnEP/qa+N3wKs6BHzA=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4f8b:: with SMTP id d11mr9222293wru.264.1559742521279; Wed, 05 Jun 2019 06:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAG9+TpaByVDQZujwtRo9LHcqFn2cOxmy09y-JmVOAzMVroagVw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG9+TpaByVDQZujwtRo9LHcqFn2cOxmy09y-JmVOAzMVroagVw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 09:48:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKcm_gO7A8gq7a234D8DF-yAre-7_rubJsn10bPXsS6eQPW5zg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is CONNECTION_CLOSE frame Ack-eliciting？
To: Jiuhai Zhang <jiuhai.zhang@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ec66ba058a93dab2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/rnpLLOiMRMWulC2uhPWNeyxPlC0>
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: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 13:48:45 -0000

Technically, yes.  But connections don't send any packets after processing
a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame, so you would never receive and ACK for it.

From: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-20#section-10.1
"The draining state is entered once an endpoint receives a signal that
   its peer is closing or draining.  While otherwise identical to the
   closing state, an endpoint in the draining state MUST NOT send any
   packets.  Retaining packet protection keys is unnecessary once a
   connection is in the draining state."

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 8:04 AM Jiuhai Zhang <jiuhai.zhang@gmail.com> wrote:

> In https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-recovery-20#section-2
>
> Ack-eliciting Frames:  All frames besides ACK or PADDING are
>       considered ack-eliciting.
>
>
> Is CONNECTION_CLOSE frame Ack-eliciting？
>
> Should endpoint responds a ACK frame when receiving a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame？
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email