Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] introduce a max_connection_ids transport parameter (#1998)

janaiyengar <notifications@github.com> Wed, 19 December 2018 21:33 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 7DCC7130F11 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:33:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.065
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, 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_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 4PlK72Zoy3xR for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:33:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8CB2130F17 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:33:29 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:33:28 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1545255208; bh=kEXIoFBEDHrVNQt1mVXMMzSP8BanOahJ5lnHa2pV5Wc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=f5+QmU7U5dZ9eShQ7yC+dMEp2rnHvOl6hLdQ4OCm5KWAi4ZAIhk0NimpIkwFGOoQl PN5UBitux1un3HtzjMWJ6h3CTVROj9Nh/wPIPYdkmMvZBMQYQkmkFQ9eKzNgNpl2qS 1Mro38SLC2/6cCornCL8p2NlgCN8TD+6nG5zB5JM=
From: janaiyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab0c55145d483450958fa350e12fac9306612f6f0d92cf0000000118327b2892a169ce16a7e5d6@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1998/review/186755366@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1998@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1998@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] introduce a max_connection_ids transport parameter (#1998)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c1ab92871768_66403f7f120d45b4722d4"; 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/hgaywSM_Anq79qGIMEJriRQBSx4>
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: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:33:41 -0000

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.



> @@ -3981,6 +3979,12 @@ A client MUST NOT include an original connection ID, a stateless reset token, or
 a preferred address.  A server MUST treat receipt of any of these transport
 parameters as a connection error of type TRANSPORT_PARAMETER_ERROR.
 
+max_connection_ids (0x000e):
+
+: The maximum number of connection IDs that the peer is willing to store.
+  This value includes only connection IDs sent in NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames.

You have the two sides mixed up. This param should convey the max that _this_ endpoint is willing to store. For clarity, I also suggest that you explicitly call out who is sending the new connection IDs: "... includes only connections IDs sent by the peer..."

> @@ -3981,6 +3979,12 @@ A client MUST NOT include an original connection ID, a stateless reset token, or
 a preferred address.  A server MUST treat receipt of any of these transport
 parameters as a connection error of type TRANSPORT_PARAMETER_ERROR.
 
+max_connection_ids (0x000e):
+
+: The maximum number of connection IDs that the peer is willing to store.
+  This value includes only connection IDs sent in NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames.

Ugh. I don't like including the CID with SPA in this count for the reason @ianswett mentions. Given that the only CID that a client will _store_ is the one that is sent on an SPA, and even that will get used immediately (or get discarded), I think it's reasonable to say that the number of _stored_ CIDs is limited by max_connection_ids.

>  An endpoint SHOULD ensure that its peer has a sufficient number of available and
-unused connection IDs.  While each endpoint independently chooses how many
-connection IDs to issue, endpoints SHOULD provide and maintain at least eight
-connection IDs.  The endpoint SHOULD do this by always supplying a new
-connection ID when a connection ID is retired by its peer or when the endpoint
-receives a packet with a previously unused connection ID.  Endpoints that
+unused connection IDs. Endpoints store received connection IDs for future use.
+An endpoint uses a transport parameter to advertise the maximum number of
+connection IDs it can store for future use. An endpoint MUST NOT provide more
+connection IDs than this limit. An endpoint MUST treat receipt of more than this
+number of connection IDs as an error of type CONNECTION_ID_LIMIT_ERROR. If an

Do we want a new error for this, or can we live with PROTOCOL_VIOLATION?

-- 
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/1998#pullrequestreview-186755366