Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Required state for retaining unacked RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames is unbound (#3509)

Marten Seemann <> Wed, 01 April 2020 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889803A07F4 for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 01:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i25TTti4_kxK for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 01:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DE7B3A079C for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 01:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4409A8C0055 for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 01:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1585730836; bh=PIyjvJtajlo82ajGE+8AbvmCdTPPS4SN+rbzifvJNlc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=irBcGOYw3Wvn+LLUwUWT/9pFqSbHGfaPX3Dsg2ub5INuH/7RjmMK8cJ9yPllJ7EAA X6arsGbNrU98rEoVVW6hPNFC3vswnQlb8ef8U73R98fMIf54fpHlJONfGCxSwVmrnz V6x2ALOkctBDNem34Kt6vdWtOsyPzRocYLbRVuzw=
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 01:47:16 -0700
From: Marten Seemann <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Required state for retaining unacked RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames is unbound (#3509)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e84551433629_3dd23ffa948cd95c42304f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 08:47:25 -0000

While increasing the limit will certainly help, this introduces a really unpleasant flakiness in the protocol. QUIC, so far, has the property that no amount or pattern of packet loss will lead to a protocol violation (it might lead to a connection timeout if all packets are blackholed, but that's a different kind of error). This means that when running QUIC in production, screening for (transport-level) errors will be very useful for finding bugs in implementations.

My fear regarding #3547 is that no matter how high we choose the limit, there will always be a loss pattern that will trigger a protocol violation.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: