Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Request to Retire Locally Issued CIDs (#2769)

Nick Banks <notifications@github.com> Wed, 12 June 2019 20:32 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 5E1EC12015B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 WOuWnDJ_edbx for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:32:40 -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 9B69512012C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:32:39 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1560371559; bh=JG6vsvP25lz8KagnPWa6uFBrnRIiQTTQawXdQIiBGa0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=hHVOVAxmIvd7CaTWS/gT2/tJNH12TwGyIspTwyLJAXhU2TdzvI6NY+falZImg8kd7 edJwCBfEjyFCiXI4p8/CxpatSgzaR4MmOhG3vwp06IoDk8u/uBAv7NJYOTPrAL1+R2 NRatNi8ydwGjXZGBnR+3sxDXTaonrcTCXzQR66Pw=
From: Nick Banks <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK37CRZYTQCGKD7ZI7N3B2J6PEVBNHHBV45H2U@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2769/review/249001442@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2769@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2769@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Request to Retire Locally Issued CIDs (#2769)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d016167d45a9_7b1a3fdd6c2cd95c1428f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
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/cn2KH_elqY4r6OeRqEn9bwWxqOM>
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, 12 Jun 2019 20:32:43 -0000

nibanks commented on this pull request.



> @@ -994,6 +994,22 @@ packets sent from only one local address.  An endpoint that migrates away from a
 local address SHOULD retire all connection IDs used on that address once it no
 longer plans to use that address.
 
+An endpoint can request that its peer retire connection IDs by sending a
+NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame with an increased Retire Prior To field.  Upon receipt,
+the peer SHOULD retire the corresponding connection IDs and send the
+corresponding RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frame in a timely manner.  Failing to do so
+can cause packets to be delayed or lost and harm connection performance as the
+original endpoint might not route those connection IDs optimally after some
+delay.
+
+The sender of the Retire Prior To field MUST keep track of the connection IDs it
+wishes to retire until it has received a corresponding RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID
+frame, with one exception: if the sender of the Retire Prior To field has used
+distinct stateless reset tokens for all of their issued connection IDs, and 3
+times the PTO has elapsed since it received an acknowledgment for its Retire
+Prior To field, then it MAY lose track of that connection ID, and respond to
+packets with that connection ID with the corresponding stateless reset token.

@erickinnear can you elaborate on this? We already have the requirement that `Retire Prior To` is <= than `Sequence Number` so it cannot retire all CIDs. I'm not sure if we can require replacement of ALL previously existing CIDs.

> @@ -5018,6 +5042,28 @@ sequence number, or if a sequence number is used for different connection
 IDs, the endpoint MAY treat that receipt as a connection error of type
 PROTOCOL_VIOLATION.
 
+The Retire Prior To field is a request for the peer to retire all connection IDs
+with a sequence number less than the specified value.  This includes the initial
+and preferred_address transport parameter connection IDs.  The peer SHOULD
+retire the corresponding connection IDs and send the corresponding
+RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frame in a timely manner
+
+The sender of the NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame MAY remove the connection IDs after 3
+PTO, even if the peer has not retired them with RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID yet.  The
+3-PTO timer starts on acknowledgement of the packet containing the
+NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame.  Continued use of the retired connection IDs after this
+point will likely result in a stateless reset being sent.

I'm fine with removing it if you feel having it above is enough.

-- 
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/2769#discussion_r293104150