IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mixing connection IDs is OK (#3870)

David Schinazi <notifications@github.com> Wed, 08 July 2020 22:48 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 4F95F3A08B9 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 15:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 YQzQw3afb6oj for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 15:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-28.smtp.github.com (out-28.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08FEA3A08B7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 15:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-c5134a3.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-c5134a3.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.55]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF258C1106 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 15:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594248536; bh=hOSGuNLsgwHwm7iN8W1cKJJUiPg7y7J15Wil47WltaI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=RHhHv7SfXic+kpv3DWIHMetqpvzxaI3Ptq/0pHmdt7jLqdwQY4Va67MNXCeBaD1Pa rYc0RJQhHydNfSR+uhQ/nMd6skc5A1Apfn5/MTxZqlsIR5IBF00egcimNkRpVZxMd7 DKFXbQpCLL9lRGd3Fq4RIVHe4w8dlOjbUc3yr1gk=
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 15:48:56 -0700
From: David Schinazi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5NZKCQRBJJ33TGSNN5CIXFPEVBNHHCN3DNBM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3870/review/445179552@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3870@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3870@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mixing connection IDs is OK (#3870)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f064d57f3b1e_43953fd1a74cd96c2807a6"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
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/ZFRgqWFqKPTW7DckjQ5HTWWGbf0>
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, 08 Jul 2020 22:48:59 -0000

@DavidSchinazi approved this pull request.

I like this change. In our implementation, we use the first destination connection ID in a packet to route to a given connection and then the connection object is responsible for detecting the presence of coalesced packets and validating that they were meant for this connection.

However, shouldn't this be a MUST instead of a SHOULD? Since this failure mode is easy to detect, can't we mandate checking?



-- 
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/3870#pullrequestreview-445179552

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email