Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Retire My Own CID (#2645)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Thu, 23 May 2019 09:11 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 AB72C120156 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 02:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.393
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.393 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, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 yfseSDI4J78V for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 02:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7428120019 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 02:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 02:10:57 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1558602657; bh=gAWfAlUu8BEynWPXuJPg7lw9Z0FYfc5PUn3P4npppNc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=PlSlfMqigTW3Mwll547MK9SVvQPE5TCaqjN0hKYMlC2W1vIZJkub9Xuqvls8g0cbH IhTsKBzoG/BFRHMYwx875n1A64//F0hugEjx40gksaisnjPrb6gWkjr/pY7gTcXbCQ HDrUuLjN+I4u9qwS9a9M9ZCVIthH4XL+SQZ0nPSI=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2WFQC5E2E6EL447AV26OLCDEVBNHHBUAUCHA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2645/495134695@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2645@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2645@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Retire My Own CID (#2645)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ce663a1bcb9d_1b423fbddd2cd960996484"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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/NV2LJxGSYwb5P9eOrEGA2uDpTSk>
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: Thu, 23 May 2019 09:11:01 -0000

I think the ACK optimisation should be avoided. A CID is retired when it is retired, not before. This also allows peers to opt in to their own schedule. They might have a complex distributed pipeline that is not synced with ACK logic. It is the senders headache since it is trying to force its own optimisation onto the peer.

While I can see the overall idea, I'm a bit concerned about race conditions here. If you retire 5 CID's the might not all take effect immediately so when the first one is retired, the next available CID is used even if it is scheduled to retire. Forcing the peer to sync on this requires processing multiple frames concurrently assuming they all land in the same packet for a start.

-- 
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/2645#issuecomment-495134695