Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't store or retransmit PATH_RESPONSE frames, avoid buffering (#2729)

Eric Kinnear <notifications@github.com> Mon, 10 June 2019 23:15 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 473B01201EF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 cjSAay23djWc for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4012C120122 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:15:07 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1560208507; bh=LBSxJpSdudmdcIbkrk6d3t0SM5CfslDtWx2FhDbxrtc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=kgAnVoGDwH5C6Xsu92IrqjDps8o6UpNDyLukFqeWoDwA11lo6D4cC0yXg03Z6ygiH fK7omds8W3FIsWyy24yHUWWqwlkt+75U8Ajdvt4CcraUZa/ao5DM1vvZHFrtIx30K9 hF9gW84jUM1y4JXeX4GmrfkncuMWx8GnUUPGnFWY=
From: Eric Kinnear <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6IDERNZN3DKX54BQ53BQLPXEVBNHHBVGEZF4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2729/review/247888763@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2729@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2729@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't store or retransmit PATH_RESPONSE frames, avoid buffering (#2729)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cfee47b44c46_5d063fee0aacd96410281b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: erickinnear
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/3XjKTCMrCHiObBWpUZKvEAmk5uY>
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, 10 Jun 2019 23:15:14 -0000

erickinnear commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1721,7 +1721,12 @@ it can associate the peer's response with the corresponding PATH_CHALLENGE.
 ## Path Validation Responses
 
 On receiving a PATH_CHALLENGE frame, an endpoint MUST respond immediately by
-echoing the data contained in the PATH_CHALLENGE frame in a PATH_RESPONSE frame.
+echoing the data contained in the PATH_CHALLENGE frame in a PATH_RESPONSE frame,
+unless it has PATH_RESPONSE frames buffered for the same destination connection
+ID and wishes to limit memory consumption.

That's part of what @ianswett was attempting to address when we brought this issue up, but I think the idea there was deliberately about rate limiting of the amount of memory you could be required to consume. Not sure how much text we need there... 
@ianswett, thoughts?

-- 
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/2729#discussion_r292226269