Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Client connection IDs are broken (#2844)

Igor Lubashev <notifications@github.com> Sat, 27 July 2019 02:10 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 2F0111201FA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 19:10:01 -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 QSfiflboDV-i for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 19:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-10.smtp.github.com (out-10.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7089A1201D9 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 19:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 19:09:58 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1564193398; bh=YkB3z4w/VXpAyDBZlnZY0H55Bxh4UBMJp99IJK5yeDY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=V5WQL4XO7tX8S07l61slGr+y+xZGundiNPm9dlqzDyQB5j5k4Qw4R7s6E/qkOxF7e vQjdyOtiClpZgmoJAJk7YM5vfuRitkmnWnwjyPtvqlBEOgeCuqBEyDvdAPZFwfP7/o T2d1DDsp1jXpxN8M0bqMP1V01ozB6ql+sOQAcKtg=
From: Igor Lubashev <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3NOO3ZNUBQRYES6SN3JDSPNEVBNHHBW5BWIY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2844/515643427@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2844@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2844@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Client connection IDs are broken (#2844)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d3bb27681c8f_37e43fc63d0cd968113494"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
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/DozsnmJT4AGDhmyRpfTfPemEG38>
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: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 02:10:02 -0000

@kazuho This discussion is about not arbitrarily forbidding something that is useful. Of course different implementations will chose to do what they need to do. Once the implementation is deployed at scale, people tend to look for ways to find even 1% improvements.

I am puzzled why you think it is "complex", though.

Is it that much more complex to do

```connection = by_4tuple[pkt.4tuple()] ? : by_cid[pkt.cid()];```

than

```connection b by_cid[pkt.cid()];```

-- 
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/2844#issuecomment-515643427