Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] active_connection_id_limit interacts poorly with Retire Prior To (#3193)

Mike Bishop <> Fri, 08 November 2019 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8182F120B86 for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:12:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tbbNezJL58dU for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:11:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF817120B89 for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:11:59 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:11:58 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1573229519; bh=+tBVBowMExAUkaGBqNbgdSJV8mhP4gU2Ycgehxt3VtU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=VRnXbFmEU8o/mP81xmoYk9T3c1+TW04bPXLzcWqccNg8SUbBis0oSN2QTPyFKVyH3 RByCFf0itNJjbVAjxxyVzyOmnhjkz85hRzQsfdiUqMGD2p2zdZjIjnU5J+6cF9D57D FsKCq44c3a6OhvwAOQG/x6QyqhATrtXn6sFIGwoA=
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3193/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] active_connection_id_limit interacts poorly with Retire Prior To (#3193)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc593cee681a_22613f933d6cd96872258"; 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
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 16:12:02 -0000

Perhaps to say that the peer MUST NOT consider the connection IDs it has been asked to retire when calculating whether the limit has been exceeded, even if they haven't actually retired them yet?  That gives implementations the latitude to hang onto them for a bit if needed, but keeps you from going over the limit even so.

Then it's the implementation's business whether it wants to defer adding the CID (and block processing of this frame), add it and exceed the limit temporarily, retire the old CIDs on the spot, or something else.

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