Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] active_connection_id_limit interacts poorly with Retire Prior To (#3193)

Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com> Fri, 08 November 2019 15:57 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 20705120A5A for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:57:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 ujFkfXh6fDCS for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 557C5120A52 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 963DAC6094A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:57:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1573228666; bh=oNkjJ/qHGC9UXp2SlNWvJA5I+VEtw+6vooUvDIGK51Q=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=CeFrGqmHDeI2Y3SIbrYN0KWtxOTPybMQ2+RwiY8j5nmTYYXIsiJbfmV7C3UGKzppy 0mCzGzJ+wrtSM77GKojUuHny5ABfxcNkdJEFSnIDiIwjapHPMOReVRkiuknD5Ry3lt aLQ0KVkx+OjFumigYm2ZbJJwh0khGVsQ1jrqQq/Q=
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 07:57:46 -0800
From: Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZJNNJODDPGDWEZI7532LBPVEVBNHHB5Y6ONQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3193/551883178@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3193@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3193@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] active_connection_id_limit interacts poorly with Retire Prior To (#3193)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc5907a877aa_7e7b3fa4f8acd96088538"; 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/TLBT5oX3jc6fm_z6B6wE0ip904g>
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 15:57:54 -0000

> If I had an implementation where I couldn't retire CIDs right away, I would probably tag them for retirement upon receipt of this frame and say those that are tagged don't count toward the limit. 

I agree that this would be a reasonable thing to do in this case. Clearly, if you have such an implementation, it's a highly optimized one that uses async processing and / or hardware offloads. I don't think it's too much too ask for that such an implementation takes appropriate steps to bridge the time it takes to retire a CID.
Do you have any suggestion how to improve the text in the PR without getting too much into implementation details?

-- 
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/3193#issuecomment-551883178