IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Include handshake anti-deadlock logic in pseudocode (#2281)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 16 January 2019 00:24 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 45AEA12D4F2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:24:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, 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 ld355xiv7JEH for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-6.smtp.github.com (out-6.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4137130F0D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:24:19 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:24:19 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1547598259; bh=bxDsHtbPhDNPvy+UVoxd8RKYVteUL1UJ+6MZbtkip68=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=PGH6eHe3uUE41Nq7v36r9eQPHBwYhiKs1sabFSYTfUkjDlXrpE1/yPRiXE5AlhApM 3pPCqJAyEI0I6oKEs/JRBPaQoaJZoL3dvbvNgCbY7Q0nbp7kSb5NNEUT65yZ/dBxmV Em5QvZLLfkFZnCegQiZa4P5aMddLLqNhlKEG+8Jg=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab5a42816c812ffd320329978b1521a2c8987d58ad92cf0000000118563bb392a169ce178befb2@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2281/review/192927486@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2281@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2281@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Include handshake anti-deadlock logic in pseudocode (#2281)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c3e79b330377_65753fdbd5ed45b8188927"; 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
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/M7CppXoCBRoO5kTxjeD7C_aabbk>
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, 16 Jan 2019 00:24:26 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.



> @@ -699,6 +703,9 @@ Pseudocode for OnAckReceived and UpdateRtt follow:
     largest_acked_packet = max(largest_acked_packet,
                                ack.largest_acked)
 
+    if (from Handshake packet):

I don't think that we should be using acknowledgments to drive state at this level.  I realize that this is less optimal, but I don't think that we need this variable.

The client can know that it is unverified if it is sending Initial packets and not Handshake (or greater).  That should be enough.  As for the test in SetLossDetectionTimer() or LossDetectionTimeout(), how is it possible for a crypto packet to be in flight, where this condition would be true?

-- 
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/2281#discussion_r248113199

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email