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

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

@MikeBishop 
> The [minutes](https://github.com/quicwg/wg-materials/blob/master/interim-19-01/minutes.md#issue-1994-endpoints-don-t-know-how-many-connections-ids-the-peer-is-willing-to-store) 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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3193#issuecomment-551416956