Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] enforce the active_connection_id_limit (#3201)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Tue, 19 November 2019 01:43 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 9A6E212020A for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:43:42 -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 p2PF_g4c3TNW for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:43:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0287120071 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:43:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:43:40 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1574127820; bh=KyPjPTtJZmsdnI2sIj5SEWyI+OUgd8r0fmBemtTvUHE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Ad1kV6Jw4KitfqeOpJ4wODhGVK9TkXLayHTPqVZeelDQJuY/6fLEFybD77seoWqdP OlsDuM1ETIjXm/RodaxtLud+C5bS4V2dr1zsccoKPGHtsouisE3wbQihlarel5nEjW ud7UJ6FLH2ZVnSFagpd1T7iPram1E1xUgKxfvnO8=
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7BFZ37RBN3UOIF7CF34B5UZEVBNHHB532IFY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3201/review/318734402@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3201@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3201@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] enforce the active_connection_id_limit (#3201)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dd348cca56f_49183f83894cd960248124"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/eRkGm_cZ1QUvVMGLK-U8H5GNeBw>
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: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 01:43:43 -0000

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

Having chatted about this with @erickinnear and @kazuho, I'm ok with this set of changes. A few suggestions.

> @@ -999,8 +999,10 @@ retired are considered active; any active connection ID can be used.
 An endpoint SHOULD ensure that its peer has a sufficient number of available and
 unused connection IDs.  Endpoints store received connection IDs for future use
 and advertise the number of connection IDs they are willing to store with the
-active_connection_id_limit transport parameter.  An endpoint SHOULD NOT provide
-more connection IDs than the peer's limit.
+active_connection_id_limit transport parameter.  An endpoint MUST NOT provide
+more connection IDs than the peer's limit.  An endpoint that receives more
+connection IDs than its advertised active_connection_id_limit MUST close the
+connection with an error of type CONNECTION_ID_LIMIT_ERROR.

I'm ok with this being a MUST. I would suggest that you explicitly add a note saying that an endpoint is expected to store enough information all received CIDs to be able to generate this error. It might be redundant, but that's ok.

> @@ -999,12 +999,15 @@ retired are considered active; any active connection ID can be used.
 An endpoint SHOULD ensure that its peer has a sufficient number of available and
 unused connection IDs.  Endpoints store received connection IDs for future use
 and advertise the number of connection IDs they are willing to store with the
-active_connection_id_limit transport parameter.  An endpoint SHOULD NOT provide
-more connection IDs than the peer's limit.
-
-An endpoint SHOULD supply a new connection ID when it receives a packet with a
-previously unused connection ID or when the peer retires one, unless providing
-the new connection ID would exceed the peer's limit.  An endpoint MAY limit the
+active_connection_id_limit transport parameter.  An endpoint MUST NOT provide
+more connection IDs than the peer's limit.  An endpoint that receives more
+connection IDs than its advertised active_connection_id_limit MUST close the
+connection with an error of type CONNECTION_ID_LIMIT_ERROR.
+
+An endpoint SHOULD supply a new connection ID when the peer retires a connection
+ID. If an endpoint provided fewer connection IDs than the peer's
+active_connection_id_limit, it MAY supply a new connection ID when it receives
+a packet with a previously unused connection ID.  An endpoint MAY limit the

Is this MAY necessary? It's certainly not disallowed. I understand how this could be useful, but it seems like a purely server-side optimization, which doesn't need to be specified. Alternatively, how about something like: "An endpoint can but is not required to send as many connection IDs as the peer can store."

> @@ -4590,8 +4595,14 @@ preferred_address (0x000d):
 active_connection_id_limit (0x000e):
 
 : The maximum number of connection IDs from the peer that an endpoint is willing
-  to store. This value includes only connection IDs sent in NEW_CONNECTION_ID
-  frames. If this parameter is absent, a default of 0 is assumed.
+  to store. This value includes connection IDs sent in NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames,
+  the connection ID used during the handshake as well as the connection ID
+  provided in the preferred_address transport parameter.

Suggested edit: "This value includes the connection ID received during the handshake, that received in the preferred_address transport parameter, and those received in NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames."

> @@ -4590,8 +4595,14 @@ preferred_address (0x000d):
 active_connection_id_limit (0x000e):
 
 : The maximum number of connection IDs from the peer that an endpoint is willing
-  to store. This value includes only connection IDs sent in NEW_CONNECTION_ID
-  frames. If this parameter is absent, a default of 0 is assumed.
+  to store. This value includes connection IDs sent in NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames,
+  the connection ID used during the handshake as well as the connection ID
+  provided in the preferred_address transport parameter.
+  Unless a zero-length connection ID is being used, the value of the
+  active_connection_id_limit parameter MUST be no less than 2. If this
+  transport parameter is absent, a default of 2 is assumed.
+  When a zero-length connection ID is being used, the active_connection_id_limit
+  parameter MUST NOT be sent.

I said detrimental because we used to not encode values on the wire that were illegal ... but we've walked away from that in other places too :-/ I'm ok 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/pull/3201#pullrequestreview-318734402