IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Specify DCID of 0-RTT packets (#2398)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Fri, 08 February 2019 21:25 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 36B5D12426A for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 13:25:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 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_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 fEI89f7Zcy3X for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 13:25:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-3.smtp.github.com (out-3.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A68B61293B1 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 13:25:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 13:25:35 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1549661135; bh=7vrXSKt0ejJWLBLuYJcovsUW86CeJlgGxF0MpVOuGCk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=DS3iTzuojofV2qFy3v5FN+DUaGeAUWi+L5FZAN3Kj2DHY3s/cS5NrGXkPFbQqZfne r/QY0m9hkE1xqIcL1qiHJAKAk+BjWJrV/ts4sNKkVvrAbglFIY/H+pDCXzfVNu7Rov SVJBQuJZ/bCA1W+ydshAAWUnV2/wNdCayQoPVW6M=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abec90507a591785c697b1a3fc530162f1ac7a9c8092cf000000011875b5cf92a169ce182664e3@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2398/461952123@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2398@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2398@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Specify DCID of 0-RTT packets (#2398)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c5df3cfa61b8_26263ffdb18d45c02117a7"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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/A7WOMEt2peX01Xq7LEJKK7MqcwQ>
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: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 21:25:38 -0000

Yes, along with the session ticket. The ticket transfer is a bit of a black box so I can only propose the high level concept. (I'm wondering if Retry and 0-RTT could be made more similar, but whatever).

> That's been discussed before, and while it makes sense to me, it means that load balancers need to be able to differentiate the two types (and potentially sizes) of CID.

At least such that they have an option to do so if they are so inclined. I.e. there is no immediate downside since you can also just provide a standard CID if that is better for a particular infrastructure.

As to sizes, that was a bigger problem a while ago when the CID size was implicit. Also, since the CID is only used for 0-RTT, it can be large without significant cost - it should/could be changed immediately upon 0-RTT server acceptance.

As to v1, I agree that might be stretching it a bit.

-- 
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/2398#issuecomment-461952123

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email