Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Required state for retaining unacked RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames is unbound (#3509)

Eric Kinnear <> Thu, 12 March 2020 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8BE3A073E for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.554
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.554 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_20=1.546, 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 jM2pCod5xNQY for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AD903A0736 for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:28:34 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1583980114; bh=8YovcwcnvXALTjR1mbwX7nM1lUw+SY3muyh9B48GyFU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=G58KJHmnaT8/8Au7Fbh3mPeX4dbCBpQ1xEPiT6SuHO/q3C/HK+lYJPJMdV2yb87uw nCJ5L1Lv8dBZGaQK5zs6IhihnfgY69mXtRBPKFFIJsypBqPGBAqBpf+yO26wDhuPkL 7QhhEzoWXYVQcbNIVUzz2FcLDMJZUX17xogS9Lkw=
From: Eric Kinnear <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Required state for retaining unacked RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames is unbound (#3509)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e699e527e404_638c3ffda34cd96c432e5"; 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
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 02:28:39 -0000

Clarification question: If the person sending RCID isn't getting ACKs back, I think we still need to assume that those CIDs are being replaced? If not, then the non-RPT side of this would just mean the person sending RCID frames runs out of CIDs to use and has to stop.

So the problem statement is that: this person is running over their max_active_cid limit from the perspective of the person withholding ACKs, but each side has their own view and so the person retiring them stopped counting them as active once the frame was sent (but not acknowledged). 
And that can happen via RPT as well, just because it means that they're going to be instructed to send the RCID, but the problem is the same either way?

(Just want to make sure I'm understanding the problem correctly)

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