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

martinduke <> Sat, 19 October 2019 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AAE712080B for <>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 17:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 KS20X716__IS for <>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 17:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E007212022D for <>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 17:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 17:16:56 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571444216; bh=0/95HH9VSC3L2xujmlGYISxPritmrKjYIcasn+KtepI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=aW021Qhn0Q3ADTaXyTiC/RNVj9nnxUZ4TXUG5Q1AnVLTTxwf4l3Qn4dF963LrBiNI rgInkl3bDxOzaqfeF/8YKW3F94K9vBFWuqd+l1dzUutTp/UVWf8Cf6kpEKzUbqf0S9 n1KoJFJr8KaT8vHsz/TpjQityIC+4PzC5VG7Tteo=
From: martinduke <>
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_5daa55f825f19_b5d3fc8424cd96c21736e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinduke
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 00:16:59 -0000

I remember thinking RETIRE_KEYS was extraneous given all the implicit
signals. But it seems that screwy-but-legal behavior seems to make those
implicit signals risky. So let's stop being cute and just use the signal.

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 4:37 PM Kazuho Oku <> wrote:

> @RyanAtGoogle <>
> it sounds like you are recommending something like the previous
> RETIRE_KEYS proposal?
> That might be the case (honestly I do not remember the details of the
> RETIRES_KEYS proposal), though I think I'm inclined to suggesting using a
> continuous signal (i.e., a Key Update or burning an unused header bit). The
> reasons being i) using a continuous signal allows us to abandon the
> Handshake keys earlier ii) we do not need to define a new signal that needs
> to be retransmitted in the transport draft, or rely on a particular
> behavior defined in the recovery draft that is not generally considered as
> necessary for a recovery logic (i.e. PTO "MUST" trigger a PING when there
> is no data to send).
> —
> You are receiving this because you were assigned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <>,
> or unsubscribe
> <>
> .

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