-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add connection_closed or connection_dropped event #43
Comments
So I'm currently breaking my head on this one as there are a lot of aspects to closing connections in QUIC:
Currently (see draft02 branch), these things are kind of spread out across three different events:
Combining this into a single However, looking at https://github.com/lucas-clemente/quic-go/pull/2501/files, which seems the main use case for @marten-seemann at least, all he really cares about is logging a free-form string "reason" for a connection_closed event, as well as having a separate event type so it's easy to query just the So, my proposal would be to add Thus, the proposed design of
(reminder, in qlog, each event has an implicit trigger field, which can contain any string value, so other triggers would be valid here as well) I'm not particularly happy with this design, but it's better than others I could come up with. Does this suit your use case @marten-seemann? Can you let me know by tomorrow evening (2nd November)? Thanks! |
Why do we need |
Merged connection_error and application_error with connection_closed, as that indeed makes more sense here. Closing for now, open to revisiting this for draft-03. |
Currently, we rely on packet_* with a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame, but that's not always enough. E.g., the server can decide to drop a connection after a long timeout without sending a CONNECTION_CLOSE. Or, we might want additional information of when a connection is effectively dropped completely (according to @marten-seemann: is supposed to happen 3 PTOs after it is retired)
Maybe a connection_closed event with a trigger field suffices? Should this be importance Base or Extra?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: