Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Retransmit server initial upon second Initial (#3080)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Mon, 07 October 2019 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ABF81201CE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 01:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.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 giarNIGSpmd2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 01:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2368120020 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 01:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 01:32:12 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1570437132; bh=ckknANrCUO3pRbzmB0vD3erj7g/n3hOsNwhpHl5HWcE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=r8yPg3tN9NQEgtg/f5SIznvvEZYeAYkz4WPP7Wipf2ubCwc5pxcNi66P7eozMP5Jn 6VaEvnLrqZPYEyZif85qvCfjMo7luuVq/CCklUNBw89j8X4ZZ6n3ttI+3bQk9jcYq4 H6TSP71PotZvVXf9MeQUZHbzhO3GU++JxbidgrXk=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5IBZK7YXI25QQEAXV3VA4JZEVBNHHB37QS2E@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3080/review/297970866@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3080@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3080@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Retransmit server initial upon second Initial (#3080)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d9af80c35ace_1aa43fbb84ccd95c93650"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/1YsI5RRCNnhjd9TjiSu87w3qc3Y>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 08:32:15 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.



> @@ -508,6 +508,12 @@ until it is certain that the server has finished its address validation
 probe timer if the client has not received an acknowledgement for one of its
 Handshake or 1-RTT packets.
 
+When a server receives duplicate CRYPTO data in an Initial packet after sending
+its Initial flight, it can assume the client did not receive all Initial CRYPTO
+data. To speed handshake completion, it SHOULD retransmit all unacknowledged
+Initial CRYPTO data subject to the path validation limits.  After doing so,
+the PTO is re-armed.
+

Can we formulate duplicate crypto a bit more precise? Does it mean a valid crypto packet with the same packet number as seen before?

-- 
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/3080#pullrequestreview-297970866