Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Cumulative RCID frame (with gaps) (#3553)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 01 April 2020 23:45 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 600533A1400 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.518
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.518 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 IrN6OoKeX_ug for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1D2C3A13FC for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 16:45:31 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1585784731; bh=3FzS2Bt780MRLQw/x5xLq20GvVzNMpcJ6jGi2kZOcmE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=c60Pxf9DoyqrGlnN5LUJeSEJmMJOjoJ2oWeEUfSZSqAcR8UDq/C/VXhecAnrzhnLC pAayAhCTxjOv9j1eXGJOTG7caxKM03ObAhVlAbw4lWzlFf14ivSW6OPVwMPytP7nbK 8Pqqzz0CaLsI7hFvepMVZKrx2b5mhXDEPaTHrK6s=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2KBFG6PHQCJB2LAKF4SEEJXEVBNHHCGKQEEY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3553/review/386023006@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3553@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3553@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Cumulative RCID frame (with gaps) (#3553)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e85279b49daa_6a9e3fd7dfccd96c2262de"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/2D49ySJdHv6Ec-wP29U4Yi9QabM>
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: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 23:45:33 -0000

@kazuho commented on this pull request.



> @@ -5595,6 +5595,14 @@ frame multiple times MUST NOT be treated as a connection error.  A receiver can
 use the sequence number supplied in the NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame to identify new
 connection IDs from old ones.
 
+When receiving a NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame carrying a sequence number greater than
+those that have been previously received, an endpoint MUST check that the sum of

IIUC, we have a MUST on the issuer-side, but nothing on the consumer-side. Therefore it is my understanding is that the status quo is equivalent to a consumer MAY check and call it a protocol violation.

I think status quo is fine; MAY check is fine when the consumer of the CIDs track each of them individually.

However, in this PR, a RCID frame is expected to carry all the CIDs being retired from the beginning of the connection, and the gaps to be no more than the `max_connection_id_limit`. To meet that expectation, there has to be a check that detects the issuer intentionally creating gaps.

That's why a MUST is added here.

-- 
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/3553#discussion_r401973478