[quicwg/base-drafts] Remembering transport parameters (#3434)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Thu, 06 February 2020 09:42 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 0DB9212083E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 01:42:38 -0800 (PST)
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 L7T-Cw3VFB4U for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 01:42:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-27.smtp.github.com (out-27.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E233E120271 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 01:42:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-275fa97.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-275fa97.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.64]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E8FDE0FAC for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 01:42:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1580982155; bh=3SSeYi/DF3J+C6Q7L95YIgyAl5rDjVNCIBwGOBhlIXQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=0k9cWRkX7w8KWvMAMCK0M2EKdwXzSEsTJ7ULadilH4y1asCzWnUtxIaU5GamsDWRD 9vSWW4TqvicVnHLdGzn8IIA8KxsFmojxCtzDhxHU/NSP2VrgOXUgSpW0mSTbkXUS/5 kY3dueAxEkcoCBWB6YtZ5TTu089ZseZLssSA7lIk=
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 01:42:34 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3EOM5SRI3ABNTYD754JEJAVEVBNHHCC3UEJM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3434@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remembering transport parameters (#3434)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e3bdf8af2555_18353f8f15ccd95c17602e"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/6T5O53XGZmrefHY_e1YL71TpxSw>
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: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 09:42:38 -0000

Our current posture is to be selective about what transport parameters are remembered.  Clients and servers are required to remember a select set of parameters.

@MikeBishop described a more principled approach: remember any transport parameter that the client could transgress with 0-RTT packets.  The implied corollary here is that operation of 0-RTT is not constrained relative to 1-RTT.

Based on that principle, we already have one transport parameter that violates that.  `max_packet_size` is one of those.

I think that we will always have a split here between connection-specific stuff (original destination connection ID, preferred address) and stuff that is necessary for 0-RTT (flow control limits).  Having a principle that we can use to guide that decision would help a great deal.

-- 
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/issues/3434