IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 11 March 2020 03:50 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 F409A3A109A for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.696
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.696 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, 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 6yaLC3KIq5d3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-13.smtp.github.com (out-13.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E334C3A10B9 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-6349a71.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-6349a71.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.18.20]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54ECB26163D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1583898654; bh=z2c/QzkFbzbVF2lFFgHjWn22B65zIlATsP18oJO39E4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=GmgErzunoTGxBLY2MuIZsvMDpECMOcvIqCRVK0h6eHK0uhEC4nHXwp/TJov2l0ib9 9X55LFkukhW1w1WsyzFhrEluPxGtOD1YFBOUCjwEeW1OtUS9v7KXoQt1kGpXiKUiv4 Ch/HfSwF+t7b82pfnCpHk9d1dpTkDZ72krT+DvIA=
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:50:54 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2FWPWDBSGJPQNWNLV4ORAR5EVBNHHCFAMG5E@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509/597430545@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_5e68601ef6b7_261b3fbc34ccd9604935ea"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/VPhSmoehVuChm7A8PqTZPPTvKPM>
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 03:50:59 -0000

@martinthomson 
> 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.

I think `2*active_connection_id_limit` is fine, assuming that the endpoint would just stop retransmitting oldest RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames. That limit would be too stern to be used for detecting potential attacks (and therefore closing the connection with CONNECTION_VIOLATION).

-- 
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-597430545

v2.20.3 | Report a Bug | By Email