Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] unrecoverable loss pattern leads to deadlock (#2863)

Kazuho Oku <> Sat, 19 October 2019 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FC91200B2 for <>; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 05:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, 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 O83Fz93nu_yF for <>; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 05:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B05F12003F for <>; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 05:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 05:35:00 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571488500; bh=i4Q4BXSpJDAIr+RFJiV4dJ8Ikaru1WUYLNjIZ5QodKU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=o/zDFxQdwn+xPk/RH70JO3rz/0e+jJNSBDl6F0KmpZVgsO6PyeQYU09HuYSJk99FD pcalbklhvwMUIqM/akYoELIHhFvbEfRGSYM0E7GaU4p8L9vM/6UCJDnJw39UHM1aXx jV3r6JYxnQholOrxtOa8ZNxtBjsT5DxKYDTv5yCA=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2863/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] unrecoverable loss pattern leads to deadlock (#2863)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dab02f4ae1b4_40b83fbce94cd96c265059"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 12:35:04 -0000

> There is a possibility the server does not believe the handshake is confirmed but the client does.  In that case, if the client didn't keep listening on the old path when it migrated AND the server didn't send anything in 1-RTT, there would be a problem.

Yes. This is the case I am pointing out.

>  But don't we require both client and server to validate the path in this case, which would mean both would achieve handshake confirmation on the new path, if they had not done so previously?

I am not sure if there is a guarantee that handshake confirmation would be obtained before the path is validated, because the path might become validated while all the packets carrying 1-RTT ACKs get dropped. And at that point, the endpoints might cease sending 1-RTT packets to each other.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: