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

Eric Kinnear <> Thu, 07 November 2019 02:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE2931200C3 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:11:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oR4URtCRxvo8 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:11:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A48312008F for <>; 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;; 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 <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3193/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
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
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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: