Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Retire My Own CID (#2645)

Nick Banks <notifications@github.com> Wed, 22 May 2019 15:37 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 C4E94120058 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2019 08:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 3bsJNZjKAu7s for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2019 08:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4473612004F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2019 08:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 08:37:55 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1558539475; bh=PpcrqkG38/Q5ddkqG6c1a0fB6u7MojhzyzcaJxzNO3E=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=rAfIoKGL+liWuYQjeHPczBx7PAOTPi76hRYBBNHXiyVxGoUoLwnfK6dXRS5m1vev9 8RgerPubuEr7CocE1ZqNd7uP6B2KVlAJx0Z7hXS4zzzE8/f2D6dCbE57Rlp1yVCCGE LZkI2gJjydJbGszMXHOSi/Fg/EfABOF/6VioSaZE=
From: Nick Banks <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3UFQC7J6LYGZKL5UV26KPVHEVBNHHBUAUCHA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2645/494856742@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2645@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2645@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Retire My Own CID (#2645)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ce56cd3e35d2_653c3fe87d6cd96483043f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
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/VKtc8jylXJIN8uehZxMhBi1eFFk>
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, 22 May 2019 15:38:00 -0000

I started writing up a PR for REPLACE_CONN_ID and I realized that the frame would end up being pretty much exactly that the same as NEW_CONN_ID. So, one way we could support REPLACE_CONN_ID semantics would be a smaller change to allow for NEW_CONN_ID to overwrite a CID sequence number. Practically that's exactly what REPLACE_CONN_ID would do, but adds a new frame and a good bit of new text.

So, would folks rather change NEW_CONN_ID to allow for overwriting, or add a completely separate frame?

-- 
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/2645#issuecomment-494856742