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

Eric Kinnear <notifications@github.com> Thu, 07 November 2019 02:11 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 EE2931200C3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:11:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 oR4URtCRxvo8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:11:07 -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 0A48312008F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:11:07 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 18:11:06 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1573092666; bh=cio44xqf7e2b3v9Xdjgklr+xKxPqSon0Sn0x48vnmCI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=UOoM+1vgd4gnMG9Js/HOOydmoGmFDjdNmlQJOhHKStrlnG5NF6b5g3z/gshyYS4oe ZaIO6gJCNIx4gpaTSvvnphdcwA/LfdUk5MjyHSexeewxJRuNLRUAtADvUtS8pRAE1n WyNi0NtkZ4KU1htdAJO8Nlbxg7u4eRvMSAdoCQs0=
From: Eric Kinnear <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7ECEREMLITQZXRGRF32CX3VEVBNHHB5Y6ONQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3193/550587584@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3193@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3193@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] active_connection_id_limit interacts poorly with Retire Prior To (#3193)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc37d3a22c17_462d3fe8682cd964320752"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: erickinnear
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/ZJIBz7rHtULIsVFQL_siUU1aTYM>
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 02:11:09 -0000

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