Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Confirm Retire Prior To via Acknowledgement (#3548)

Nick Banks <notifications@github.com> Sat, 28 March 2020 22:32 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 DF6533A07F8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 15:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.474
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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_28=0.726, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 4P5sqR7nl54V for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 15:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE85A3A07F4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 15:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-943b171.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-943b171.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.22.59]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B90416A0608 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 15:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1585434724; bh=iXskygQGIlRjZqyDK38JfqZMX3wIFVgYK03VRPF9qP8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=p6WvGE5VwRb0/FhBAp6f8QhmrqL2aFxTKhgSQw7slKH0ozM8BePGL6voVSVq0se1w XaqMi61F7OFe2/U7Sevj779E+/QISBohedgKFv1pg433J0g+8ZG7Vzk9zR9jnG1sMD dhZpjJJWIvQms4YM07XnzHRjXm6I7ORS5+or4+Fs=
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 15:32:04 -0700
From: Nick Banks <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2I3FYV5ICT4QJWFXV4ROYWJEVBNHHCGJLIMM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3548/c605528294@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3548@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3548@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Confirm Retire Prior To via Acknowledgement (#3548)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e7fd064a6924_7a783fe5a72cd96434479"; 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/fY91BNTpaIBl2ZwOu3zugoYQ3-8>
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: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 22:32:07 -0000

> I don't think that we should go against established principles to solve something that can be solved more trivially.

IMO, #3547 is a heuristic that mitigates the problem, but doesn't quite solve it. Additionally, it is more complex to implement, than this proposal, as it requires tracking all the additional state to retire the CIDs.

> Instead, I'd suggest keying off use of a CID issued after the Retire Prior To as indication that the RPT was received.

I still prefer the ACK approach, personally, but I do think I'd prefer this suggestion over #3547. I think it would work pretty much the same as the ACK approach, but just uses a different implicit signal.

-- 
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/3548#issuecomment-605528294