Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] active_connection_id_limit interacts poorly with Retire Prior To (#3193)

Kazuho Oku <> Fri, 08 November 2019 07:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38AE1200F3 for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:26:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_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 xKCGtNQuEO7U for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:26:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 506C612009E for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:26:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A9AA1199 for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:26:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1573197981; bh=syjJeQjQXNoD1wk/Pim6ymsXKzeeJvtGRAwdc904euc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=pm4luI9qgcqIZwlwG4cZhAa+vQ1Mn48ntdfuGFrb/dBWtcpPd5TEMok88AaYiCib8 aKjpcUJZ/VuMHXIXNtXjJNUt8EQ8YeroELk7ykIKwMOJtEnn9tNbpQDDAevOmRHcaS 4YOfCqJTlCZa73XKVSUu6uoRAZoMbrfHtTucQHyU=
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 23:26:21 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3193/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] active_connection_id_limit interacts poorly with Retire Prior To (#3193)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc5189d883c0_3a003f8cd4ccd968284053"; 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
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 07:26:24 -0000

> The [minutes]( aren't super informative.... @kazuho was against it being an error, and @ekr thought it needed to be a hard requirement if present. Nothing else specific about who opposed it or why.

IIRC, some mildly opposed to the addition of active_connection_id_limit because it's an unnecessary complexity, arguing that the model could be simple as: issue-some initially, then issue more as the peer uses the CIDs. After the discussion, the middle ground that we agreed was to make it an advisory settings. Note that we made this decision prior to the addition of Retire Prior To.

But now, with the introduction of Retire Prior To, we have another way of retiring CIDs. I think that the simple model is no longer unsustainable.

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