Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow endpoints to generate traffic keys asynchronously (#3874)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 05 August 2020 00:48 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 1CAE73A1157 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, 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 nBSLbCzMLaPr for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2B713A1118 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.19.54]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5DBB34005D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1596588479; bh=X5m9pLLGWrMtbkpZSzobZWcPe1rwya2SExdEKLXNs5Y=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=MXza0dmKxY3mTTp352RrC0W1CW3GBvITI3MBjC5hlA5ExheyflYYEk/OHFJ+EIMrt YPBO3iudlacdtDKTe+3rHDf2vf1sTiNB5oS9jzhiFzWf94KfrEhjGMQ66JUmTn+K93 IYdSVkn5hbW8LOYTJIjMcQd/elPPLso7xLAzdlTA=
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 17:47:59 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK37EFOUYNXJVYJO6XV5GXRL7EVBNHHCN3MY3A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3874/review/461266854@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3874@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3874@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow endpoints to generate traffic keys asynchronously (#3874)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f2a01bfd580a_50f016f81693db"; 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/PrV41I-HdM61reD4CPRJI5fCslY>
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, 05 Aug 2020 00:48:02 -0000

@martinthomson approved this pull request.

Yes, this is much better.  Shame that it's so big, but that's unavoidable, I think.

>  
-- MUST use the lesser of the value reported in ACK Delay field of the ACK frame
-  and the peer's max_ack_delay transport parameter.
+- MAY ignore the peer's max_ack_delay until the handshake is confirmed,

Do we want to say SHOULD here instead, given that buffering happens?

It means updating pseudocode, but the change is small.

> @@ -1232,10 +1255,7 @@ OnAckReceived(ack, pn_space):
       IncludesAckEliciting(newly_acked_packets)):
     latest_rtt =
       now() - newly_acked_packets.largest().time_sent
-    ack_delay = 0
-    if (pn_space == ApplicationData):
-      ack_delay = ack.ack_delay
-    UpdateRtt(ack_delay)
+    UpdateRtt(ack.ack_delay)

We should change line ~1285 down there vv to:

```
  if handshake confirmed:
    ack_delay = min(ack_delay, max_ack_delay)
```

-- 
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/3874#pullrequestreview-461266854