Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] pto_count should be reset when dropping a packet number space (#3272)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Fri, 29 November 2019 00:02 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 5C98E1208E1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 16:02:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 TBz3bblXwlgY for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 16:02:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1684120227 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 16:02:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-fb56993.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-fb56993.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.19.31]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D673D9605EC for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 16:02:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1574985727; bh=0u8QOL8/8EYSw2NwTV2NMBrvWBb3/UNHGj+wS0qVGIc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=s5XFAUjMKe9r+GCZtVtNHKt9a8eVW+HfFRyUphl2n87jhJO9si8tfcUDOlXgrmRf2 pnWQl6+rTE+R4O7pAV/R5K5Cmv6QMG3S5aNbR0Oo8/QdOCUxeC2JJnIOzg8uAIzD53 lE9tialWhnXatdl7JFqSlEOf6VqwRH8RRxM70a1Y=
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 16:02:07 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6P7GIPA35BWJG76DV35WJH7EVBNHHB64N4FE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3272/559621651@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3272@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3272@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] pto_count should be reset when dropping a packet number space (#3272)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5de05fffc7aad_22e73fbee84cd95c73932f"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/gZo_Ft1pLT8ZSuk-9xceM_8G3-Y>
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, 29 Nov 2019 00:02:14 -0000

@janaiyengar 
> I think the behavior we're looking for is (i) use a separate pto_count per epoch, (ii) use the max of all pto_counts when setting the timer for any PN space, (iii) reset all pto_counts when an ACK is received for any epoch.
> 
> This isn't great, and it is imperfect -- you can end up being more aggressive than with a single count. But I think it's good enough.

The logic you describe sounds fine to me (apparently I missed (ii)), it would make the PTO behavior during handshake _as aggressive as_ after the handshake. I cannot see when it would be more aggressive than that, and I think it's better than "imperfect but good 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/issues/3272#issuecomment-559621651