IETF Logo Mail Archive

[quicwg/base-drafts] Flow/congestion control and rejected 0-RTT (#390)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Mon, 13 March 2017 00:23 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 4BB8C12940C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 52e1alwoYO_K for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from o1.sgmail.github.com (o1.sgmail.github.com [192.254.114.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA0051293E8 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=gg6vNLQc4BRLQ5d8kGPErsk+qDc=; b=NYI9al2R3u9N2pVA eXuSlynKU4otveYoBm1BtQwcwG8ofdk1nZMUcHtcQNz0Ic/iIFPNVJNidnjY2ZGL gbytV4ZA1H2GMpHQAfBCK3DqSZgXvbZiX0IohKIBpruw5ATwx4txygaxz3dlOVQB 2aV+u841J+u6Xhgek/H31ZbU8MU=
Received: by filter0914p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0914p1mdw1-3972-58C5E68D-56 2017-03-13 00:23:41.955684925 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.16]) by ismtpd0001p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id E3Tsw130T7eZpjDZJc0a1A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 00:23:41.813 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:23:41 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/390@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Flow/congestion control and rejected 0-RTT (#390)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_58c5e68db15ca_67b83fd66e847c341718d8"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak1akaAp+xIBlTMAqHkgsIpH7QjVFHT690EmrK LMQMfhPRp4BcRjDn6AEGekrRolGvMO4L696OE7jGrtvNIK4ID1Sg23wjQenQELu/B/2v7raMiPzcoF kc0zo5qZJ+vMg37A6QDRqGrXaTUveCcqNfy9GQzBiWIkYw2FOO2py0RuSutjVlfziyAElAHtAsWsYo o=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/IN7adF1rXqRtlLue0NY7gGEuenc>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: quic@ietf.org
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: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 00:23:44 -0000

We need to be very clear about what the rules are regarding 0-RTT packets that are rejected by the server.  I think that this should be:

* Rejected 0-RTT packets don't count toward flow control.  The server can't see them, so we have to assume that they don't exist for this purpose.

* Rejected 0-RTT packets **do** count toward congestion control limits.  Congestion control is a local thing, and the packets were sent, which means that they are causing congestion.

-- 
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/390

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status