IETF Logo Mail Archive

[quicwg/base-drafts] Coalescing different CIDs for same connection (#3800)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Tue, 30 June 2020 22:27 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 7B2D53A090B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 ezatzBKlLoMD for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 395063A0909 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F776A049A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1593556040; bh=xXKGchI5KNmXLmT1h7hQnpBG7p3CxxKW07PgtchZJQ8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=mC8Enxm/k0KinLh6K6StqP7dWNkHwkTMAxTpp07t4Hixv929Vjcufnxbbb/4BHMxZ fynBqAKB/k2CI2kd8xg1czPyQLkE8xgfKqmtacysjFQVD61vYU1hGWoD02goMkn/ui RCHSLvMyxuiSKklkMqFxp2Xk8wj9GRw9g7VI8X9k=
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:27:20 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZCVXND22TJOOFU7P55A6OUREVBNHHCNJ65QE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3800@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Coalescing different CIDs for same connection (#3800)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5efbbc482331d_58333f8eed6cd96c2027bd"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/H2Xx6DeVkl4Ae8wHt-sCZDHzhic>
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: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 22:27:23 -0000

Section 12.2 makes two quasi-conflicting statements about coalesced packets.

> Senders MUST NOT coalesce QUIC packets for different connections into a single UDP datagram.

> Receivers SHOULD ignore any subsequent packets with a different Destination Connection ID than the first packet in the datagram.

In a connection where the sender has multiple CIDs in hand, using two different CIDs in the two coalesced packets is entirely consistent with the guidance to the sender, but would be dropped based on the guidance to the receiver.  We should align these two statements.

-- 
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/3800

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status