IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Coalescing different CIDs for same connection (#3800)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Mon, 13 July 2020 11:29 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 B56703A0F99 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 04:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.081
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.282, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 CG7vBRyBAuS4 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 04:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F28F3A0F67 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 04:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-1b8c660.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-1b8c660.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.18.59]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5CDEA1FCC for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 04:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594639764; bh=L2AQSPCoNkU6s2cl7lCPLFGF9HsLXudbQH69+cfCQ/c=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=2YEhPjjdyWx/GznSs5cZSdXRy4UzgXXKdAbTfEaaQo67WDIU22dcdT1p+R2UHVKmO udv6zYfm+9KtXBuVr4Obnznwkz7IyF61I5PRjcw+ZJrkvpDq07LxUAkqGhkEKXNZnx j5qkcQociaGJu6BDWqC8Oj1Bc46XWxImr0GInPwQ=
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 04:29:24 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5MKLPU3XXII5VF7JN5DATJJEVBNHHCNJ65QE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3800/657501031@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3800@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3800@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Coalescing different CIDs for same connection (#3800)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f0c4594a446f_52933fe0962cd95c154664"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/OAsjsOKb-rPrS_tMEKdoGHzhwaw>
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: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:29:27 -0000

@marten-seemann Thank you for the clarification.

> My main point is that this change is unnecessary because when endpoints change connection IDs, they change it for all packer types at the same time.

I think I do not agree to this, too. IIUC, the consensus we reached with #3438 was that the CID of a Handshake packet and that of the 1-RTT packet can be different. While it is true that the initial DCID set by the client is expected to change when the client receives the first "active" connection ID supplied by the server, the fact does not mean that the CIDs of all QUIC packets within a datagram has to be the same in all the cases.

-- 
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/3800#issuecomment-657501031

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status