IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Coalescing different CIDs for same connection (#3800)

Dmitri Tikhonov <notifications@github.com> Fri, 10 July 2020 19:27 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 CAE663A08A5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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_24=1.618, 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 SIRAGrVP3n7l for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49B1E3A08A3 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-56fcc46.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-56fcc46.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.102.32]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE43520121 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594409248; bh=bn3FtMlQRyMyckAxSzeWVwRkEfHxq+E5woSK2/WK7zo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ifbhvFxLq/iWX5dJ4laYh04YQidoqqx0hVsmt0HKUUDzgZ5Pc1GQlJtMp3Lj/spf9 xgYqOU/JHCPejs1IhMIXrCRprz4gqHbZduCZsXNBEvbyRHo6P1ibjr9XWbfIeEcY24 /PtmZ0n9tzrJxEPQ3geEHjogvuJ+ddzMaUajzukw=
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:27:28 -0700
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3CRZHWWL6XNERX4R55CSRCBEVBNHHCNJ65QE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3800/656851626@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3800@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3800@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Coalescing different CIDs for same connection (#3800)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f08c1203ca9f_cf73fd71e2cd960189578"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: dtikhonov
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/a-f7nnyrGUoxx8GqRPDOhLghGuw>
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: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:27:31 -0000

@martinthomson writes:
> I'm of the opinion that the first should change to different connection IDs rather than connections; the second might change to a MUST NOT, but it could remain a SHOULD and achieve the same end.

This is much simpler alternative than what is being proposed.  Now an implementation can only drop a packet after doing a connection lookup, whereas before it could just compare the CID to the previous value.

If this is just a matter of personal preference, I vote for this approach, so now the score is 1:1 (with @larse being on the opposite side).

---

To take a step back: why is recommendation to drop packets exist in the first place?  If a sender wants to coalesce packets from different connections, why not let it?

-- 
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/3800#issuecomment-656851626

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email