Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handling of Retire Prior To field (#3046)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 18 September 2019 07:20 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 390E0120819 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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: 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 qJnfVeTE_IAL for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29679120800 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:20:40 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1568791240; bh=B5GuunZt7yVLlBOsJlNk20waxtDsQhrhZNWKXAmHw0U=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=s+BDw9Q3IsBfHoatCmwdJe4VbpTZfw8ZgvXn9JMnlmYbqVvQrX+cVJG9zEJrea7WX dVD4YVXKyVxN4uVEvP6/Af8gfES6Hmrf7iyTMo6nMgjI0yoBEoseoj5zasK/pds5dh Kxt8HyrVK5e8yl9FQodrsX6cp4SO9jzvCyUZErP8=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK45UJFHWQSZBEKFHAF3R4GUREVBNHHB27HBVI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3046/532555231@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3046@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3046@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handling of Retire Prior To field (#3046)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d81dac846056_235f3fd78b2cd95c1444d8"; 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/Wy8lHKUNM1QE-OOt8XN3H_O6Cs8>
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, 18 Sep 2019 07:20:43 -0000

@erickinnear Thank you for the explanation and the links. They help a lot in understanding how we ended up here.

> Whatever the answer here, the SHOULD was chosen because "timely manner" isn't defined in a testable fashion. If someone wants to argue for MUST, then we need a firmer definition of the reaction.

Yeah we already state that "_an endpoint MAY discard a connection ID for which retirement has been requested once an interval of no less than 3 PTO has elapsed since an acknowledgement is received for the NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame requesting that retirement._" So I think it's testable.

Considering that we have a MAY on the side that initiates the retirement, I think we can have a MUST on the receiver side (assuming that we want to).



-- 
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/3046#issuecomment-532555231