Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confirmation condition (#2881)
ianswett <notifications@github.com> Thu, 11 July 2019 15:03 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 45E171202ED for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 08:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 jJzZEs_yqVT1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 08:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 891E5120335 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 08:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 08:03:12 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1562857392; bh=2OtpqiSVXUJ80RvXlZ2zmw/ejaIwy0Tu1w5ei/Smb4Y=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=H6S/vmq3PiP73KI3Ynj+fw6qkLub3/6iQH7lBOMoX77MmInXGaRFRjW1o2Rb5wVfq ToVQBZcjIlgXouDV9ExT3j3omuRk1VW6Yve2uzxOZ3dvzEwehBdXN2MGkRRo4vqV2/ WTRiIu/805NfMDUXRutkFvkC6/qTr/ifgdm3GIb8=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKY35V3VZT4P4OZWJ3F3GSBDBEVBNHHBXQFRGE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2881/review/260758998@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2881@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2881@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confirmation condition (#2881)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d274fb048f2f_1a853fe2f40cd96c16775c5"; 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/FuOTRUmsX7bQFF-pbnFtotaOB6I>
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, 11 Jul 2019 15:03:24 -0000
ianswett commented on this pull request. This is going to conflict with #2806 so I'll try to merge that soon. > @@ -391,6 +391,15 @@ sent with 1-RTT keys, and the highest value of the Largest Acknowledged field in any received 1-RTT ACK frame: once the latter is higher than or equal to the former, the handshake is confirmed. +Note: + +: Unless ack-eliciting packets protected by 1-RTT keys are sent by an endpoint, + the handshake might never be confirmed by an endpoint. If the peer does + confirm the handshake, this could result in perpetual retransmission of + Handshake packets, which cannot be acknowledged. To avoid this problem, in retransmission of Handshake data, not packets? Here and on the next line. > @@ -532,11 +532,18 @@ a PATH_RESPONSE to seed initial_rtt for a new path, but the delay SHOULD NOT be considered an RTT sample. When a crypto packet is sent, the sender MUST set a timer for twice the smoothed -RTT. This timer MUST be updated when a new crypto packet is sent and when -an acknowledgement is received which computes a new RTT sample. Upon timeout, -the sender MUST retransmit all unacknowledged CRYPTO data if possible. The -sender MUST NOT declare in-flight crypto packets as lost when the crypto timer -expires. +RTT. This timer MUST be updated when a new crypto packet is sent and when an +acknowledgement is received that produces a new RTT sample. Upon timeout, the +sender MUST retransmit unacknowledged cryptographic handshake data. The sender +MUST NOT declare in-flight crypto packets as lost when the crypto timer expires. + +If the handshake is complete, but not confirmed (see Section 4.1.1 and Section +4.1.2 of {{QUIC-TLS}}), in addition to sending unacknowledged crytographic +handshake data, endpoints SHOULD send an ack-eliciting 1-RTT packet. This can ```suggestion Handshake data, endpoints SHOULD send an ack-eliciting 1-RTT packet. This can ``` -- 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/pull/2881#pullrequestreview-260758998
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confirmat… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Nick Banks
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… David Schinazi
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confi… Martin Thomson