Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ignore loss of undecryptable packets (#2028)

Subodh Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Wed, 21 November 2018 03:17 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 C9E3D126DBF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:17:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 MhoAqxSVN4CM for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:17:14 -0800 (PST)
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 E128E124BE5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:17:13 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:17:12 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1542770232; bh=vim2Wm7tsZL/oHjd4yagCxwpBrh24DO2D7zIcnROEeo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Y1VA1h78KaEpSBtd0qSjs2/nQ8F343UIbLMuCUU1m5UkIH2bNtEszANvbPvK9Nyde 71hyBQE+abgL8Q00qMIh1fwyWBCzzYBU6g6wpHe9ZySqQvai3NMjA5Yu8oScnKCBL1 4S9e2giH3E1I1bD+Sx0rnXXFxJNsfx+aSmAN2BOw=
From: Subodh Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab56e38711baf76eac9f7b90f6da772ea49de2c22792cf00000001180c903892a169ce16d1c244@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2028/review/177062934@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2028@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2028@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ignore loss of undecryptable packets (#2028)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bf4ce38b6795_4e803feb0ccd45c44818d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: siyengar
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/5ejtwoiM-NsfNpw9QxzAhg55Zwo>
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, 21 Nov 2018 03:17:16 -0000

siyengar commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1000,6 +999,17 @@ The recovery period limits congestion window reduction to once per round trip.
 During recovery, the congestion window remains unchanged irrespective of new
 losses or increases in the ECN-CE counter.
 
+## Loss of protected packets during the handshake
+
+0RTT and 1RTT packets sent prior to handshake completion can arrive before
+the peer has keys to unprotect them.  In those cases, the peer may decide
+not to buffer the packets.  This will cause the packets to never be
+acknowledged and eventually declared lost, despite being delivered to
+the peer.  If the server rejects 0RTT, then the congestion controller
+SHOULD ignore the loss of 0RTT packets.  If any 0RTT or 1RTT packets sent

should be consistent about 0-RTT, instead of using "0RTT", "0-RTT" might be better and similar for 1-RTT

> @@ -1000,6 +999,17 @@ The recovery period limits congestion window reduction to once per round trip.
 During recovery, the congestion window remains unchanged irrespective of new
 losses or increases in the ECN-CE counter.
 
+## Loss of protected packets during the handshake
+
+0RTT and 1RTT packets sent prior to handshake completion can arrive before
+the peer has keys to unprotect them.  In those cases, the peer may decide
+not to buffer the packets.  This will cause the packets to never be
+acknowledged and eventually declared lost, despite being delivered to
+the peer.  If the server rejects 0RTT, then the congestion controller
+SHOULD ignore the loss of 0RTT packets.  If any 0RTT or 1RTT packets sent
+prior to knowing the peer has keys to unprotect them are lost, the
+sender's congestion control MAY ignore the loss of those packets if it's

this could use some psuedo-code changes as well. Happy to put them up in a separate PR if you want.

-- 
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/2028#pullrequestreview-177062934