Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Better duplicate detection (#3696)

Kazuho Oku <> Tue, 26 May 2020 05:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA7983A0AA9 for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 22:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 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_28=1.404, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f2RFQODGL3wO for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 22:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 364CD3A0AA7 for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 22:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785DD2C12F5 for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 22:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1590470765; bh=Y+CtorNOcn39SWMD4b6o1AX0S/Fr5N3El9uFKNngUyU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=eXRX+Qjf1UtYDH5w6z3GpZUf62S2uQj1K4/gVuPJ9bT7XCM4J6G978/TneBW4YJXz br/yNy7JL4myRJxNfXq5OalE0avCgQNQ2o3VGh9KYPaUtfRKcL6a5ykIP5k74XCg+0 ty+KCDYcv68fACcrWF+9DZSJh1n5YavZw+/XUQnY=
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 22:26:05 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3696/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Better duplicate detection (#3696)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ecca86d6a560_24f73fe5690cd96818724a"; 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
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: Tue, 26 May 2020 05:26:08 -0000

@kazuho commented on this pull request.

> @@ -3204,9 +3204,15 @@ response to further packets that it receives.
 A receiver MUST discard a newly unprotected packet unless it is certain that it
 has not processed another packet with the same packet number from the same
 packet number space. Duplicate suppression MUST happen after removing packet
-protection for the reasons described in Section 9.3 of {{QUIC-TLS}}. An
-efficient algorithm for duplicate suppression can be found in Section 3.4.3 of
+protection for the reasons described in Section 9.3 of {{QUIC-TLS}}.
+Endpoints that track individual packets for the purposes of detecting duplicates
+might accumulate excessive state.  The data required for detecting duplicates
+can be limited by maintaining a minimum packet number below which all packets
+are immediately dropped.  In setting a minimum packet number endpoints might
+need to account for large variations in round trip time that could significantly
+delay packets, especially if a peer migrates to or probes a different network
+path; see {{migration}}.

I think I'm advocating for removing "might."

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