Re: Shouldn't we add a new CLOSING state in H2 ?

On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 4:47 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019, at 08:04, Patrick McManus wrote:
> > 3] wait for h3 where this little tcp artifact of intentionally losing
> data
> > is not an issue.
>
> h3 won't solve this issue.  At least not given its current design.


Perhaps you are looking at a broader issue than I am (and thought was what
wily was describing).. I was specifically referring to the pattern that
forces the RST when tcp data hits the closed connection which in return
forces the truncation and dropping of buffered valid recvd (even ack'd)
data on the client.. That should go away (ha) in h3, no?