Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discarding connection state at server on unvalidated client (#2656)

MikkelFJ <> Mon, 29 April 2019 06:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE62120074 for <>; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 23:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 HA2FTtxoUOQy for <>; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 23:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECAE6120072 for <>; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 23:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 23:42:58 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1556520178; bh=WwCM2Idyf3tdTJLfgHKEFEAoB+6t8EUzbPy2MzRGo6o=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ktVRVeLVbp9PDKt1XcPZZ96DAHqV2FQy+EJvpdZOnGqVWt2sSXBXfMmT3ASpkRhWk GUc6lI7Z6Fsv0I/gTXA3OT9LgENB9Xm9bVksmMZcZk6CmLFTQp4VWj18sOkowSyhdi nxVfPP7Q5EZdkv76pxhhSXMQu0JAjb91ers84flQ=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2656/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discarding connection state at server on unvalidated client (#2656)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cc69cf2dd318_79d73fb2e92cd9641218381"; 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
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: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 06:43:02 -0000

Am I correct in assuming that the PTO timer is not generally armed when data is transmitted actively on quality connections, or a while after data has been delivered?

Combined with idle timeout scans this would mean that most long running connections would likely not have an active timer.

This is a highly desirable property since a precise timer is O(log N). As far as I can tell theoretically O(1) timer wheels are no more effective than a good O(log N) implementation, including foregoing ordering below a certain resolution. There is a big difference between 1,000 entries and 100,000 timer entries.

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