Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] active_connection_id_limit interacts poorly with Retire Prior To (#3193)

Eric Kinnear <notifications@github.com> Thu, 07 November 2019 20:42 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 0039812096B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:42:31 -0800 (PST)
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 875KZLNL0tEU for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:42:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F321E12089B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:42:27 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 12:42:27 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1573159347; bh=p7WjSIfiqxMgKQNBHzpco3/8t2cYAO3KBD2dAkux7Yw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=QeRGh/dIojMZkOISRChkSNEJ0mW2oH4LakjG3C8f0QFvh8VV3kmp4LeZpZFy2qmQu fmBxZOLat5QQITZ5VKbmoPL8Y6Lxn4HTxOl8fI++KLzLPNloVVdZzs4ocoDfxhTDdh u1DCpvVBc8iR98bCxJcKfv3iHESkGv0o8iAjlEAc=
From: Eric Kinnear <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZ5FJSW7ATFHDAWXZ532G2DHEVBNHHB5Y6ONQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3193/551254796@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3193@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3193@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] active_connection_id_limit interacts poorly with Retire Prior To (#3193)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc481b3beed_22f3fcc1b4cd96c1280af"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: erickinnear
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/DL5Q8dcyHnC46KWdm2vBTG9kJhE>
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:42:32 -0000

There definitely was a reason we avoided making this a strict requirement, and I think this played into it, but this is the benefit of having RPT delivered in the same frame that delivers a new one. 

Perhaps modify the text to indicate that the error is if the limit is exceeded after retiring any in RPT?

Or even some non-normative text along the lines of “If RPT retires all outstanding CIDS, immediately start sending new packets with the new CID and make sure you only check the limit after retiring any indicated in RPT”? 

On one hand, it’s kind of an annoying thing to keep track of. But on the other, making it a hard requirement does decently simplify a lot of other scenarios. 

That said, we should probably go dig up the other reasons we avoided this the first time around. 

-- 
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/3193#issuecomment-551254796