IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] negative base values (#4938)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Tue, 28 September 2021 06:17 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 1F1333A1F67 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 23:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.674
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.674 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.452, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 yCmLxi77VSgQ for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 23:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10F743A1F65 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 23:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-b089360.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-b089360.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.122.71]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E11B340BEA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 23:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1632809866; bh=a8YzxR/VuboBb9R0Pzp/Dw291Q+aJW4ZRU3mfMLgvzA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=J4iOvQ18huqYYArxBJ+cOVWii8k05vOjbBaxzAQCXISmfZJW6GzcCg+h3/stvoFrD J/6Dpl80zfBG2sA8JVS9GyNbddK4j+B5nqW6sfj8XX7nTNDWpSgHrZo3qxHEXwrJCw bdXixboWcsU7z3dqtc4FL/FS4Yor7w8VhM3WOpmw=
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 23:17:46 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5NHOFC7NA22BO67DV7L2KIVEVBNHHDYENBTM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4938/928889128@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4938@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4938@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] negative base values (#4938)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_6152b38a1fa0b_478fc76016686c"; 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/82udIsUx7I27aqhfAG62SUMxWNg>
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: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 06:17:52 -0000

Thank you for your comments. It's assuring to know that others think the same way; i.e. that Base should be positive.

@martinthomson 
>  We also (now) reject anything that produces a base >= 2<sup>64</sup>. I don't see any other way to handle that situation.

That sounds totally fine when the underlying transport is QUIC v1, because the encoder can send no more than ~2<sup>62</sup> instructions due to the size limit of a QUIC stream. Even if we ignore this v1-specific property, endpoints would have the opportunity to send GOAWAY before base exceeds 2<sup>64</sup>.

-- 
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/4938#issuecomment-928889128

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email