Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Required state for retaining unacked RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames is unbound (#3509)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 11 March 2020 03:28 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 C3B2B3A1056 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 ShZDZ6UqcmEn for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64FD03A1057 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:28:48 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1583897328; bh=6VxwttoCJ8YyiY9uTfcdEiw6cZgjgN0cpdgwmQXOP74=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=G6o45IIvyyR4XYdAE/XsvHPMLZMo6n1RROTYPbKrS3h8N5+ALJ+/4ezpXLmd6zpUZ rB3+/0H0F/Feu/huZc0S+zxMDcGal1RRtoVvNlWtmNr/6DVE/s5oOBEuAPj5nspWJq 3COqwokcG+cYnt4gLZNw6yr3F/qICAVnf8xCEyfE=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3DRR2P35NEKQPEFXF4OQ57BEVBNHHCFAMG5E@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509/597425775@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Required state for retaining unacked RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames is unbound (#3509)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e685af0237d2_73053fc1fcccd960236730"; 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/UgGyngJElrphR6eCte90KcH_778>
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, 11 Mar 2020 03:28:51 -0000

Mathematically, this might be unbounded, but it's more likely that in practice the limit is `2*active_connection_id_limit` as it would be unlikely that unacknowledged RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames would remain so once more NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames start arriving.  More so as the issuer of those NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames has to have received the RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames.

Adding new frames for this seems a little unwieldy, so I'd prefer to just acknowledge that the problem exists.

Note also that Retire Prior To has the effect of making this limit squishy in other ways.

(This is a design issue.)

-- 
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/3509#issuecomment-597425775