Return-Path: 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 43B9D130E10 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 00:06:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 Q-WDdAY1E8Mx for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 00:06:25 -0700 (PDT) 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 804B41294D0 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 00:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:06:24 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1531119984; bh=pv3HcLmmAufGbx/2Z3DFaDR7l+DGrI72ExBvWaqfcW0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=BAOLDgWiomyhoFdoXQmPrBzoJBk02+mILzSVYIe0PIQDpCasb/2IL/F37Bu9HSjQQ f/WXB8slUcjsNhp224cHwk9oL2bE7eCqvMg5MqbQOg0oqSWPE4fvLOxhPMWPuUF8kQ 4b+FHuNXkdkGb8ush0msmxPMPsXOSxhq+Sutrr+Y= From: Kazuho Oku Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts To: quicwg/base-drafts Cc: Subscribed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Permit 0-RTT after Retry and VN (#1514) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b43097082f6e_34113f8da68dcf8415464a"; 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: X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 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: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 07:06:27 -0000 ----==_mimepart_5b43097082f6e_34113f8da68dcf8415464a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit kazuho commented on this pull request. > @@ -778,6 +783,33 @@ are in a different packet number space to other packets (see {{packet-numbers}}). +### 0-RTT Packet Numbers {#retry-0rtt-pn} + +Packet numbers for 0-RTT protected packets use the same space as 1-RTT protected +packets. + +After a client receives a Retry or Version Negotiation packet, 0-RTT packets are +likely to have been lost or discarded by the server, especially if the server +changes its connection ID with a Retry packet. A client MAY attempt to resend The text after "especially if ..." seems to imply that 0-RTT packets might not have been lost in case the client receives a Version Negotiation packet. I am not sure if that is true. My understanding is that a Version Negotiation packet is sent by a server only if the client offers a version unknown to the server. In such case, all the 0-RTT packets would have been lost, because the format of the 0-RTT packets are version specific, and those would have been unprocessible by the server. -- 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/1514#pullrequestreview-135295742 ----==_mimepart_5b43097082f6e_34113f8da68dcf8415464a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

@kazuho commented on this pull request.

In draft-ietf-quic-transport.md:

> @@ -778,6 +783,33 @@ are in a different packet number space to other packets (see
 {{packet-numbers}}).
 
 
+### 0-RTT Packet Numbers {#retry-0rtt-pn}
+
+Packet numbers for 0-RTT protected packets use the same space as 1-RTT protected
+packets.
+
+After a client receives a Retry or Version Negotiation packet, 0-RTT packets are
+likely to have been lost or discarded by the server, especially if the server
+changes its connection ID with a Retry packet.  A client MAY attempt to resend

The text after "especially if ..." seems to imply that 0-RTT packets might not have been lost in case the client receives a Version Negotiation packet.

I am not sure if that is true.

My understanding is that a Version Negotiation packet is sent by a server only if the client offers a version unknown to the server. In such case, all the 0-RTT packets would have been lost, because the format of the 0-RTT packets are version specific, and those would have been unprocessible by the server.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

----==_mimepart_5b43097082f6e_34113f8da68dcf8415464a--