IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 0-RTT DCID Routing (#1513)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Wed, 04 July 2018 06:42 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 92110130EC4 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 23:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 feD-N6cHNQBD for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 23:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-14.smtp.github.com (out-14.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4449E130EB4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 23:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 23:42:48 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1530686569; bh=zwpJj1crvukr/18zULdAc8XU0DqAzYFafsZy2MEFwwE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=kSom9WxVwxX/UxfMWocuq04hyPofsT/Pf9ANDpnFZ5iOotbyjSCoqWq0zjGoQOBoj 2BYEpHl830aK1gflJ6RmPfZEdSdgG+vd4KSODEG2mXxmpbW9lOcTb0bCMAIOFg9Evu 1LzaML77VVeEmX4FRf2G4n6Q6+M1jGXfGt1Jmy4w=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abd876b6148399bdce3b68bf21e7911e8ded82f4e592cf0000000117542e6892a169ce14218572@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1513/402379540@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1513@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1513@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 0-RTT DCID Routing (#1513)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b3c6c68b6ed2_11932aaedde82f544655d7"; 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/BzFOhpRBMkbzIdbc7KzyIdlNe8M>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 06:42:51 -0000

It does make sense - in my response to the linked comment above I claim that 0-RTT cannot be routed in the general case. But in specific cases where a DC can distribute 0-RTT trust better than LB routing it makes sense.

I don't know enough about 0-RTT trust formation to have a strong opinion. There are downsides to both cases.

The risk is the 0-RTT mostly become useless and provides more RTT's rather than fewer.

Idea:
0-RTT token is delivered with a DCID token to use in new connections. This DCID is (typically) neither random, not as specific as a proper server generated DCID. This makes it possible to route 0-RTT to any compatible end-point. Perhaps this is what you mean by an ID in the NEW_TOKEN frame? It starts to get complicated, but I think it would work better.

-- 
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/1513#issuecomment-402379540

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status