Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify handshake anti-deadlock wrt. handshake confirmation (#3503)

ianswett <> Sat, 07 March 2020 09:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471E03A0EBB for <>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 01:41:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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 cyanAd_m4A4G for <>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 01:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F8793A0EBA for <>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 01:41:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC446E124D for <>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 01:41:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1583574099; bh=5RdJryCpFP53NHjHshrmejIQ1H3dMs7pz2Z5sRd9ND4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=vpd3u8ZjSiLsPEo9vACOJ+jbtK6HxHLYI+RG889jJvKOCg5L5l4rmX2vCzQz7Atix fSqFtGdSjlBi9jqHuAdMMETL05fzkX+J+uH7ERXU7jgRAK6Y/hiYYBqc5scf6dZuT6 xc7xgHGz3X/j9IeZANfLQTZV4EX6m8Idk1Rsq9Yk=
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 01:41:39 -0800
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3503/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify handshake anti-deadlock wrt. handshake confirmation (#3503)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e636c53a049_18ac3fdc1dacd9685596ef"; 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
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: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 09:41:41 -0000
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 09:41:41 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.

Thanks for writing this!

I think I'd prefer mentioning HANDSHAKE_DONE explicitly since receiving a 1-RTT ACK also confirms the handshake and I think in this case, it's probably easier to not rely on handshake confirmed?

Also be aware of #3461 to update the PTO pseudocode.

> @@ -517,7 +517,7 @@ client, it is the client's responsibility to send packets to unblock the server
 until it is certain that the server has finished its address validation
 (see Section 8 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}).  That is, the client MUST set the
 probe timer if the client has not received an acknowledgement for one of its
-Handshake or 1-RTT packets.
+Handshake or 1-RTT packets and the handshake has not been confirmed.

As history, this text was written without HANDSHAKE_DONE in mind(because it hadn't been added) and I thought receiving a 1-RTT ACK was going to be how the handshake was confirmed.

Technically, receiving an ACK of 1-RTT confirms the handshake, so I prefer "or a HANDSHAKE_DONE frame." instead of "and the handshake has not been confirmed."  It's a bit more explicit, now that our mechanisms have stabilized.

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