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

[Eric Kinnear <[e-mail]>]

I definitely agree that it could cut down a lot of complexity to change from SHOULD NOT -> MUST NOT, although we probably should check the minutes from Tokyo about why we didn't want that at the time.

@marten-seemann, for:
> it's not possible to know how many of the new CIDs were actually stored and how many of them might have been dropped.
I can see where it might be irritating to not know a precise count here, but I'm not sure the two sides actually need to be in sync about that. 

@MikeBishop's point about being able to retire CIDs that you've forgotten is well taken, although it does run the risk that you'll get a replacement (although maybe you drop that too?).

I think @kazuho's argument that changing to a MUST NOT would bring us in line with the other crediting schemes makes a lot of sense, and it would bring us to a much nicer interaction model -- you ask for whatever you want, the peer gives that many to you. (Can they still give you fewer? I think the answer has to be yes, if it's costly to generate and maintain, then the issuer should control that.)

I think it would drastically simplify if we made this MUST NOT. Happy to send a PR for that.
Do we want a protocol violation if exceeded? We will likely need #3197 too along with this.

-- 
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-550587584