IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Behavior around key availability delays during handshake (#3874)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 18 August 2020 21:57 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 4C5D93A0DE6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 Vwo6uAfMdomo for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-13.smtp.github.com (out-13.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 219E83A0DDC for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-1dbcc59.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-1dbcc59.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.105.54]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1B07A0E67 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1597787832; bh=0rFt3iIfbNNhPSkOlb4fDsPA9TtRUtIntPp7UDsnWpM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=w2Vs5MClHf9mLPUAXuXVzEf5Q6aRytLnX2tI1vbvOncS/xJuK87mCWUcBxJzX4w1I 91yYvDX2ZKQuEIQiwAWBkkCvMwFd+Mzu//XfyZSaMMvi0F25Ke7sEyKp3krIvRdVz0 Bur16UrH+aIBvDBmAkSmotolMnBVE8sCcQfKkf3w=
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:57:12 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK442TXVPMGPXEIEL7F5JAX3REVBNHHCN3MY3A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3874/review/469858745@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3874@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3874@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Behavior around key availability delays during handshake (#3874)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f3c4eb842d52_5cd519647195e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/gxfDRcmEwPRHs98NPiaDy9ce1_k>
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, 18 Aug 2020 21:57:14 -0000

@ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ delay sending an acknowledgement.
 
 When the PTO is armed for Initial or Handshake packet number spaces, the
 max_ack_delay in the PTO period computation is set to 0, since the peer is
-expected to acknowledge these packets immediately; see 13.2.1 of
+expected to not delay these packets intentionally; see 13.2.1 of

After a re-read, I think I was thinking this was a problem for packets in ApplicationData, but after re-thinking this, I don't think there's an issue there.  I posted this 1 minute before our editors meeting, so I suspect I was a bit rushed.

-- 
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/3874#discussion_r472516191

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email