Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ignore loss of undecryptable packets (#2028)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Wed, 21 November 2018 18:14 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 51E99128AFB for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:14:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, 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_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 7wqyAaHhm-3i for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:14:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7696B128CE4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:14:26 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:14:25 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1542824065; bh=xGpq8aCEauuz7vGzNu74LyI7wPMHJlH+7ZmQEtnj6Ws=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=iAbTmm75FTzVG5QoSgq94iy+eaXNsm0vWRUJQYI1XaZYMm9oUuJ1OXHEAI9LRvaFO FRYsFo9BRbPes+R4FCNXTaTzh9jS5Me4A65BFrKxY8OobrsH1m4xzsFOG3gzVIgrNi px7MDTJH8d6cumKeNNeDN559vbZeWjK8IMf+nEOU=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba92da0c0db9d7b7e12675d4ae189bc99c7019c2e92cf00000001180d628192a169ce16d1c244@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2028/review/177372648@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2028@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2028@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ignore loss of undecryptable packets (#2028)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bf5a0818d7bb_5d443fa9338d45c0102120"; 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/Giju_CEea-V5c9yzb7fXQfmW3dY>
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: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:14:28 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1000,6 +999,17 @@ The recovery period limits congestion window reduction to once per round trip.
 During recovery, the congestion window remains unchanged irrespective of new
 losses or increases in the ECN-CE counter.
 
+## Loss of protected packets during the handshake
+
+0RTT and 1RTT packets sent prior to handshake completion can arrive before
+the peer has keys to unprotect them.  In those cases, the peer may decide
+not to buffer the packets.  This will cause the packets to never be
+acknowledged and eventually declared lost, despite being delivered to
+the peer.  If the server rejects 0RTT, then the congestion controller
+SHOULD ignore the loss of 0RTT packets.  If any 0RTT or 1RTT packets sent
+prior to knowing the peer has keys to unprotect them are lost, the
+sender's congestion control MAY ignore the loss of those packets if it's
+believe they were received by the peer prior to having the correct keys.

But the question is if it can be done with far less resources here because it is not only taking bandwidth but also convincing and endpoint to back off. I don't know enough this to really know. It could also be the window is overestimated, which is not such a bad thing in this case.

-- 
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/2028#discussion_r235493381