Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix handling of Retry in recovery (#3148)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Thu, 24 October 2019 12:45 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 C7E6E120105 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, 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 4seby076O7LP for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:45:24 -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 3375812011C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:45:21 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1571921121; bh=kkvXqK+DdFSi9/9gukM6unjDIKH0o0Py3zblng2RZik=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=jGRpxwRGfFq+kbgbhoZQRmcXJuQwO4rJ1dE0aOobSwYc/TywNIfPCKRfQwgAQ5rxj jeRUIYq/avazIHgm7BHXHDPtSq5jmXvAYy/7Y2jwLIPFJAYHDwRgAXVnIduHhmulNs OPdLCdksGqvVLF3LlKlP+NMbpJ2q8U4z4gMdrXFI=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3YYY5NO6C6JBC3L7F3X3OXDEVBNHHB476S7Q@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3148/review/306543049@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3148@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3148@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix handling of Retry in recovery (#3148)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db19ce1cfcd5_406f3fb71b2cd960129055"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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/GhvpM_jkgZd4PI9Bcq4YGXpuyvk>
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, 24 Oct 2019 12:45:26 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.



> +## Handling Retry Packets
+
+A Retry packet causes a client to send another Initial packet, effectively
+restarting the connection process.  A Retry packet indicates that the Initial
+was received, but not processed.  A Retry packet cannot be treated as an
+acknowledgment.
+
+Clients that receive a Retry packet reset congestion control and loss recovery
+state, including resetting any pending timers.  Other connection state, in
+particular cryptographic handshake messages, is retained; see Section 17.2.5 of
+{{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}.
+
+The client MAY compute an RTT estimate to the server as the time period from
+when the first Initial was sent to when a Retry or a Version Negotiation packet
+is received.  The client MAY use this value in place of its default for the
+initial RTT estimate.

If the Retry moves from a server in Melbourne to Chicago, the RTT estimate might not be worth much. Since this could be common use of Retry, I'm not sure this advice is sound. But perhaps I'm missing something?

-- 
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/3148#pullrequestreview-306543049