Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Request to Retire Locally Issued CIDs (#2769)

Marten Seemann <> Thu, 06 June 2019 08:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DF2E12027A for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 01:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.806
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.806 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=-0.415, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 tlh2xXjM7orE for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 01:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0234B120259 for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 01:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 01:17:15 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1559809035; bh=0JnPprSdlafGFBVC/RZUtdVJEBvwxdv+gMBaSx4w2Kk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=bUGVQEPRKmzr4lbMrGWD7elZgwP6AGuNzn7ZOwIHOGp55DSY/QmoqQVihZikoVrCm 8uGStDMSuw62comlC1/0GKSmSwmYD+dqR7rRXPnI6TVSv1zO/p414UV4/P9P9xF/1u DBjyB5GLQbmKX3sT3lhWFC8UsZvL0sKp5LZe39+E=
From: Marten Seemann <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2769/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Request to Retire Locally Issued CIDs (#2769)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cf8cc0b87728_296e3fbbe7ccd96c672243"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
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: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 08:17:22 -0000

> Am I correct in understanding that this is the way key update works? Assuming that is the case, my +1 goes here.

I think that's an implementation decision. You could certainly enforce this by requiring that `PN(packet sent with old connection IDs) < PN(first packet received with new connection ID)`. This doesn't stop a peer from acknowledging the NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame, but never acting on it though.

Another way to implement this would be to enforce that `PN(packet sent with old connection ID) < PN(ACK for NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame)`. This would be a somewhat stricter way, since it doesn't allow the peer to ignore the frame (without inducing artificial packet loss).

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