Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 01:00:11 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts
 <reply+AFTOJKZKGVZ6EHCUEG6RD253YPJIXEVBNHHB4QEEV4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095/546833078@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Backoff of CONNECTION_CLOSE needs to be a
 MUST (#3095)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="--==_mimepart_5db6a00b9027b_48693faa576cd9642326a5";
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/BIej5JDz-48kDGctqHxeRwDh6ro>


----==_mimepart_5db6a00b9027b_48693faa576cd9642326a5
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In #3157, I've gone with
* SHOULD limit when you retain packet protection keys (as you can stop sending packets once you receive CONNECTION_CLOSE)
* MUST limit when you drop packet protection keys (as you do not know when to stop)

Re https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095#issuecomment-542920940, while we can define a rule based on how endpoints use CIDs, I think I prefer having a rule based on how a stack is implemented (i.e. when you drop packet protection keys) rather than how a stack is configured (i.e. the way CIDs are used). IMO, the latter is harder to test and therefore fragile.

-- 
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/3095#issuecomment-546833078
----==_mimepart_5db6a00b9027b_48693faa576cd9642326a5
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<p>In <a class="issue-link js-issue-link" data-error-text="Failed to load issue title" data-id="513144065" data-permission-text="Issue title is private" data-url="https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3157" data-hovercard-type="pull_request" data-hovercard-url="/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3157/hovercard" href="https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3157">#3157</a>, I've gone with</p>
<ul>
<li>SHOULD limit when you retain packet protection keys (as you can stop sending packets once you receive CONNECTION_CLOSE)</li>
<li>MUST limit when you drop packet protection keys (as you do not know when to stop)</li>
</ul>
<p>Re <a class="issue-link js-issue-link" data-error-text="Failed to load issue title" data-id="507544751" data-permission-text="Issue title is private" data-url="https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095" data-hovercard-type="issue" data-hovercard-url="/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095/hovercard?comment_id=542920940&amp;comment_type=issue_comment" href="https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095#issuecomment-542920940">#3095 (comment)</a>, while we can define a rule based on how endpoints use CIDs, I think I prefer having a rule based on how a stack is implemented (i.e. when you drop packet protection keys) rather than how a stack is configured (i.e. the way CIDs are used). IMO, the latter is harder to test and therefore fragile.</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&mdash;<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095?email_source=notifications&amp;email_token=AFTOJK4BD6MLAW6TDLBWHM3QQ2LYXA5CNFSM4JBEQ6Q2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOECMAFNQ#issuecomment-546833078">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFTOJK52LEMFQS23PM5IYITQQ2LYXANCNFSM4JBEQ6QQ">unsubscribe</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AFTOJK642AG6YH4VESD57ALQQ2LYXA5CNFSM4JBEQ6Q2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOECMAFNQ.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /></p>
<script type="application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095?email_source=notifications\u0026email_token=AFTOJK4BD6MLAW6TDLBWHM3QQ2LYXA5CNFSM4JBEQ6Q2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOECMAFNQ#issuecomment-546833078",
"url": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095?email_source=notifications\u0026email_token=AFTOJK4BD6MLAW6TDLBWHM3QQ2LYXA5CNFSM4JBEQ6Q2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOECMAFNQ#issuecomment-546833078",
"name": "View Issue"
},
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>
----==_mimepart_5db6a00b9027b_48693faa576cd9642326a5--