Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Limit RCID state (#3547)

Kazuho Oku <> Wed, 01 April 2020 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3E33A0CC9 for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 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_32=0.001, 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 74CO-Aa-tWfX for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 998503A0D83 for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 16:54:26 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1585785266; bh=gjx2TYHs0CUgM2srtZ6DzbPMy2Rer01IdILhJdcJcmw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=LK+Y320GGuSwslbHHEP7R03kTVHvp64KAFR8PCFNivWOjLbry/SATHFQLLWZ5WOBl Foa6mB+NJOBGY8OAiKQRkcYWBLVdC1bRhTh+R8MmghbLx03SNYFzM8r/hMvxqwlQo7 DVNNh+KmHQkPzBfdlrB8nUPpfR5juG58j9MTXFwg=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3547/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Limit RCID state (#3547)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e8529b2c7f4d_2ae73fb0ed2cd96c4578a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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 23:54:29 -0000

@kazuho commented on this pull request.

> @@ -1069,6 +1069,15 @@ to cease using the connection IDs when requested can result in connection
 failures, as the issuing endpoint might be unable to continue using the
 connection IDs with the active connection.
+An endpoint SHOULD limit the number of outstanding RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames
+to bound the necessary state. In order to allow a peer to retire all previously
+issued connection IDs, the limit on the number of outstanding
+RETIRE_CONNECTION_IDs SHOULD be at least the active_connection_id_limit. An

@martinduke I agree that when restricted by CWND, we cannot send a frame. Therefore my view is that it is difficult or confusing to call a frame that is not yet being set as "inflight" or "outstanding." Both words are wrong IMO.

That the reason why my text above talks about "state retained for retiring connection IDs."

> The exact threshold to throw an error is indeed not needed in the spec. However @ianswett, rightfully, requested a MAY around the error to set expectations for debugging.

While I am not against making such a suggestion using MAY in text, if we are to make a suggestion, I think we'd need to be very cautious so that the limit would not be too small.

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