Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rework Key Update (#2237)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 13 February 2019 03:05 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 84AD0129A85 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 19:05:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
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_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 Kd9Ni8jRRC5I for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 19:05:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1BBB1295D8 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 19:05:13 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 19:05:12 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1550027112; bh=mLo8RrdVbc9+vg3dfXnggxS53VnWSZEK/Gnkx89aDbc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=SAndrOHp0oHl3m+Th2cpOqJIGXBYQGKiL62lBNYIwR+Hue8sD+FuThid4qjzrnXao ZcN7fCZ64L6N8VOKJBvZF6rdJMZKb0EZReHaB46Cfy7+VbEJAQAQah+vXWaW2PPn3Z WVXtT7IZaX1L3qL2oDwM4zn35443iBmaULrvYzd0=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab908c83f03ad4799a6ed1745d71a939f844f3db3c92cf00000001187b4b6892a169ce1770e975@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2237/review/203011827@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2237@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2237@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rework Key Update (#2237)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c638968b6228_4a3a3fab940d45c4156942"; 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/WKZoAnu4AuFVExNxyz7twGnEHc4>
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, 13 Feb 2019 03:05:15 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.



> @@ -5012,6 +5020,44 @@ Reason Phrase:
   This SHOULD be a UTF-8 encoded string {{!RFC3629}}.
 
 
+## KEYS_READY Frame {#frame-keys-ready}
+
+An endpoint sends a KEYS_READY frame (type=0x1e) to signal that it has installed
+keys for reading and writing packets.  Receipt of this frame in a packet
+indicates that all earlier keys can be safely discarded.

We've had some discussions about losing packets during the handshake due to reordering, and I think that we just have to make some allowances in the congestion controller/loss recovery for that possibility.  For packets that we abandon like this, we lose the positive signal (i.e., congestion window increase), but we don't necessarily create a negative signal, because abandonment means that you don't declare them lost.

I'll tweak the text about the dropping of keys requiring both sending and receiving of the 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/pull/2237#discussion_r256232628