Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] unrecoverable loss pattern leads to deadlock (#2863)

MikkelFJ <> Mon, 01 July 2019 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76C01201F1 for <>; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 21:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F6RRwb2r30py for <>; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 21:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3FD51201F0 for <>; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 21:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 21:22:14 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1561954934; bh=RnvtOkgySNRLB6jLSzec74Drzgj4HaLnBzNwnka1Jok=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=vNbsSha+h5tXNJ4tcMhgnyMZGBT605hbeDKAUxQ6HD/p4Gq0fGVD3LX0gB4ioNZ+h qF7hHkoUl1xfTHStff2P9dpM2lbwpg/NMdeKDmRlyUq4KOnYnjOT0frcThhtWszu9W uwRUwUgH1zT+1sInh0ttGNq0yhTKt7kk6DpttcCY=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2863/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] unrecoverable loss pattern leads to deadlock (#2863)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d198a761b65c_4033fa9262cd968376336"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 04:22:18 -0000

> Would it be enough to say that "unless an endpoint sends some ack-eliciting data in 1-RTT packets, the handshake might remain unconfirmed indefinitely" and leave it at that?

No i think the state needs to progress. Resources might be tied up and timeouts might be in place to weed out bad handshakes before a longer or indefinite idle timeout.

I would say the client MUST send at least one ack-eliciting 1-RTT packet once it is able to do so, and within, say, 1 PTO.

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