Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PTO after handshake completion is not well-defined (#3831)

Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com> Wed, 08 July 2020 01:02 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 362EA3A0CC7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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_20=1.546, 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 XNmmemlRrBk2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84E6A3A0CC6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-ca235ff.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-ca235ff.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.110.15]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D75660D78 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594170138; bh=85XI7rd4fq8OoANMt8pglIA/LC/f72cnSNkZNTa7Nxk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=pMqfX4Qe9In7y6rPydegQMHp2sRkRJ9pL0ZLSCfRU9Cl7KdOGGRB4u2kE1QAVunrq cF7QduSsYAE/Zbs+d7V39WQ2LjGLwQ5n5XEKLqshr0Zjm3VYQ7eo516/egwDF17yPd LvX1p47+3pUJv18wR2Fvt9b93i08CRCxIZxuGgHY=
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 18:02:18 -0700
From: Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYKZNTFBHF2A2CS67N5CD6BVEVBNHHCNXO66A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3831/655218336@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3831@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3831@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PTO after handshake completion is not well-defined (#3831)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f051b1aa6570_70953f86f22cd9641946bb"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/RBserFvYHreMBCuwPRCtoS7kCRA>
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, 08 Jul 2020 01:02:21 -0000

> Generally speaking, I think that this is the correct behavior. If an endpoint has sent a tail, and has not received an ACK for more than 1 RTT + alpha from the moment it sent the packet, it is natural to assume that the packet might have been lost. 

The problem is that this is not a "real" tail. It's only a tail because we have different packet number spaces. Note that the server completes the handshake when receiving the CFIN, which is also when it derives the client 1-RTT secret. This means there's no way it could have received and processed an ACK for any 1-RTT packet.

-- 
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/3831#issuecomment-655218336