Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] missing description of what happens when receiving an ACK for an unsent packet (#2298)
Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Sun, 06 January 2019 18:01 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 BB9F7128CB7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 10:01:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.065
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, 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_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 sF59ol1ZTVZG for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 10:01:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB366127B4C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 10:01:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 10:01:39 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1546797699; bh=pCoCV0dISjmnJ3K0MDeHMpD3cXEQfs+H/qXElfZq9Kw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=cD9N2yHJk2nkiVha3wIV9yhhb6itflx7kh9RtMMXtmWLNAeCA1ITo+gKreGAFqa12 TJGIPJFn+IpAhp7CwEEqL7YKJ3LLx0WH4BQgk0B7DnvR/9U+CgtGuFJpAmBpMm+k0f 9h1i2D8x3o9UskLQw9pqh8DMUqtsx5XL0Nb/Ls5A=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abc6b6fb9db380f881eca8c2278826b665feada17f92cf00000001184a048392a169ce179e2ba1@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2298/451761344@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2298@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2298@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] missing description of what happens when receiving an ACK for an unsent packet (#2298)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c324283d68f9_3fdc3ff7fd8d45c07479e7"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/WbwhqpvKPrJzLLWysXVV-uVwczQ>
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: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 18:01:45 -0000
> I'm not sure which error code to use for that though, none of those currently defined really matches this case, so you'd have to use INTERNAL_ERROR. I think you are expected to use PROTOCOL_VIOLATION in such case. Quoting from editors' draft: _An endpoint detected an error with protocol compliance that was not covered by more specific error codes._ > A peer that receives an acknowledgement for a packet that it didn't send should be required to close the connection. FWIW, I think that the requirement should be no stronger than "SHOULD if detected", to avoid endpoints memoizing the gaps for the previous 2<sup>31</sup> range. I assume that endpoints would typically just drop packets carrying a PN that is deemed too old. -- 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/2298#issuecomment-451761344
- [quicwg/base-drafts] missing description of what … Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] missing description of w… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] missing description of w… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] missing description of w… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] missing description of w… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] missing description of w… Martin Thomson