Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify section on negotiating connection IDs (#3349)

Nick Banks <> Wed, 15 January 2020 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CEDA12090A for <>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:09:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UjO8YYOEIker for <>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:09:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1BD412090B for <>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:09:55 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:09:54 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579115394; bh=XNZhujS3nSCS9fES8ItxFrvdxyt2AMwjZpLGCih32Io=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=DyFsHfokQ3qbuc15Bc8MR2BbO7SyTYIOgf7TNkKRRMXHAtqPJKzfbXwqBL5o7yM9G QVE/SfTa3syfWoyYl31S71f3mrAEl3MAIwHk5VCyWbtVmU7AthF+CEa4t26Dr8vbQM bcE1kaVqDtJe2q9Ex+VLyrt6BfHcuY3usIb2DjQE=
From: Nick Banks <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3349/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify section on negotiating connection IDs (#3349)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e1f6382c2e17_1ea3f8a252cd96088463"; 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
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:09:57 -0000

nibanks commented on this pull request.

> -Initial packet from the server. Once a client has received an Initial packet
-from the server, it MUST discard any packet it receives with a different Source
-Connection ID.
-A client MUST only change the value it sends in the Destination Connection ID in
-response to the first packet of each type it receives from the server (Retry or
-Initial); a server MUST set its value based on the Initial packet.  Any
-additional changes are not permitted; if subsequent packets of those types
-include a different Source Connection ID, they MUST be discarded.  This avoids
-problems that might arise from stateless processing of multiple Initial packets
-producing different connection IDs.
-The connection ID can change over the lifetime of a connection, especially in
-response to connection migration ({{migration}}); see {{issue-cid}} for details.
+the SCID supplied by the server as the DCID for subsequent packets, including
+all subsequent Handshake and 0-RTT packets. This means that a client might

Why require that all subsequent Handshake packets use the same CID? It's definitely requires for Initial and 0-RTT to have consistent routing through the LB, but I haven't heard any reason to require it for handshake (taking into account possible new CIDs being received, i.e. #3348). IMO, adding extra restrictions here just complicates NEW_CONNECTION_ID handling.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: