Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify server CONNECTION_CLOSE with Handshake (#2688)

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 06:53:41 -0700

@ianswett pushed 1 commit.

4079e66c3b6663c49ea6ba0d78ca6a184724eb2a  Update draft-ietf-quic-transport.md

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2688/files/1bb9ef09352cce9ed56c14058105a2029f111715..4079e66c3b6663c49ea6ba0d78ca6a184724eb2a

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 06:53:51 -0700

9dfb614cec93c5b860ccd06fd7e6a3d3fdcd53ed  Update draft-ietf-quic-transport.md

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2688/files/4079e66c3b6663c49ea6ba0d78ca6a184724eb2a..9dfb614cec93c5b860ccd06fd7e6a3d3fdcd53ed

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 06:54:16 -0700

4029df2796f2426543d7becb051809a6ef94c262  Update draft-ietf-quic-transport.md

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2688/files/9dfb614cec93c5b860ccd06fd7e6a3d3fdcd53ed..4029df2796f2426543d7becb051809a6ef94c262

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 06:54:30 -0700

68d1c8b3b1dd3b657de8a7b4580f7a8da0db509b  Update draft-ietf-quic-transport.md

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2688/files/4029df2796f2426543d7becb051809a6ef94c262..68d1c8b3b1dd3b657de8a7b4580f7a8da0db509b

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 06:55:17 -0700

b669d0f7c51fa100e2c7c76fe6ddffa1e2c495d9  Update draft-ietf-quic-transport.md

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2688/files/68d1c8b3b1dd3b657de8a7b4580f7a8da0db509b..b669d0f7c51fa100e2c7c76fe6ddffa1e2c495d9

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 06:56:02 -0700

ce74eecbbc1228dc48a69b249126410eb597e0fa  Update draft-ietf-quic-transport.md

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2688/files/b669d0f7c51fa100e2c7c76fe6ddffa1e2c495d9..ce74eecbbc1228dc48a69b249126410eb597e0fa

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 06:57:14 -0700

ianswett commented on this pull request.

> @@ -2304,13 +2304,25 @@ the application requests that the connection be closed.  The application
 protocol can use an CONNECTION_CLOSE frame with an appropriate error code to
 signal closure.
 
-If the connection has been successfully established, endpoints MUST send any
-CONNECTION_CLOSE frames in a 1-RTT packet.  Prior to connection establishment a
-peer might not have 1-RTT keys, so endpoints SHOULD send CONNECTION_CLOSE frames
-in a Handshake packet.  If the endpoint does not have Handshake keys, or it is
-not certain that the peer has Handshake keys, it MAY send CONNECTION_CLOSE
-frames in an Initial packet.  If multiple packets are sent, they can be
-coalesced (see {{packet-coalesce}}) to facilitate retransmission.
+When sending CONNECTION_CLOSE, the goal is to ensure that a peer will process
+the frame.  Generally, this means sending the frame in a packet with the highest
+level of packet protection to avoid the packet being discarded.  However, during
+the handshake, it is possible that more advanced packet protection keys are not
+available to a peer, so the frame MAY be replicated in a packet that uses a
+lower packet protection level.

I don't have a strong opinion, but I see your point, this was @martinthomson addition, so I'll let him comment.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2688#discussion_r290751166

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 18:59:25 -0700

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

The point was to articulate the principles behind the design.  It might be that the mechanics are sufficiently precise that that is not necessary, but we did have #2151.  @ianswett's changes didn't really directly address that.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2688#discussion_r290996965

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:20:34 -0700

If people want to fix this, please open a followup issue.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2688#discussion_r295052981

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:21:09 -0700

We might just delete this tomorrow, but this is strictly better than what we have now.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2688#issuecomment-503333673

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:21:13 -0700

Merged #2688 into master.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2688#event-2422408737