IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] When to send the SETTINGS frame (#2945)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Sun, 04 August 2019 18:03 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 C4AE9120047 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 K_GorSaBWPbp for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A8B0120020 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2019 11:03:36 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1564941816; bh=Qz/v2IeNobT3W2vSBE8YxNT/1ungaW9k+qaS2NnQF8I=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=UamOyFKTbsTKnSnPh1JZKS/mwudcylxlY4lhQcU7sdtv2pEUhLcYfFXBN69jWY4We gb5fE0iZl5HxlcRVgxNepschS8QAm0485pPWqZuBzgFoXfp02XF2n+jR4oMMccsvVT 3ZXpgNgtwuspDXt04gRUFM+jMTcqmZkijSfrH6QM=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4HPEHE7T5CVDUTRHV3KRIHREVBNHHBYVUFKY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2945/518023647@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2945@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2945@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] When to send the SETTINGS frame (#2945)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d471df8610f7_2dda3ff16f0cd96014130aa"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/CeWhM71S9fw0gnoONM7hqlGtP8A>
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: Sun, 04 Aug 2019 18:03:39 -0000

Currently you can only send SETTINGS once, so allowing them to be sent n+1 times means they all have to be identical, which is not only duplication of data, but also the client should check that they're identical.  Which is doable, but seems unfortunate.

At some point, it was suggested that the only data that ever needed to be sent post-handshake was NST.  IF that was true, we wouldn't need CRYPTO frames in the 1 RTT packets, which might be a simplification and the elevation of NST might be a net win.

Given where we're at, are people interested in any of these larger changes?  It seems like the simplest change would be that any sent SETTINGS frame replaces any SETTINGS used for early data.  I believe this ensures long term consistency and is the minimal change that would 'fix' this issue?

-- 
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/2945#issuecomment-518023647

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email