Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two CHs handling the same SH (#4090)
David Schinazi <notifications@github.com> Thu, 10 September 2020 22:48 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 8759C3A0FEC for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:48:42 -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 84k-a641ZxH0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39BCF3A0FEB for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-9bcb4a1.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-9bcb4a1.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.84]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A24F34013A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1599778120; bh=85u+o3Lnh78nYlFW66xVpYxfypU2+UPMAXQ2m5q/PCU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=qlTAhA4jSSK/FUe9e1SHcxJgVEprAuTBGKfowBvHtxlau1Jtc1CE/usAHkOv6UuW1 e+Ich0ei2De/SqAEdVmtyFgIQwu93aNLQxYzmaM8MWFC4iiKvKWaRfLbCjWKZCmjp2 zRyRhh/GmQ9hHMeJwlleHhN4fRy1r6RKux8/vE7s=
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:48:40 -0700
From: David Schinazi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZVQVXOIUGF5DXKAO55M2HEREVBNHHCTIYSKU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4090/690771839@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4090@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4090@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two CHs handling the same SH (#4090)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f5aad486b408_3f8f19f03179eb"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
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/lMDK2dSEgPMGPoTZG-dv3H-IHNg>
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: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 22:48:43 -0000
If I understand this issue correctly, we have an edge case that we hadn't thought of where things are odd but functional. Since this doesn't cause any failures or security issues, do we need to do anything about it? The only negative outcome seems to be that the server wastes a small amount of resources, and the server can unilaterally fix this themself by using deterministic CID routing. I'm inclined to put this in the "Doctor, it hurts when I poke myself in the eye" bucket and not worry about it. I think banning this server behavior isn't helpful because it might be reasonable for a server deployment to do this intentionally if it's cheaper for them to use randomized client-selected-CID routing even with the wasted resources cost. -- 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/issues/4090#issuecomment-690771839
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two CHs handling the sam… David Schinazi
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Two CHs handling the same SH… ekr
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two CHs handling the sam… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two CHs handling the sam… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two CHs handling the sam… ekr
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two CHs handling the sam… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two CHs handling the sam… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two CHs handling the sam… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two CHs handling the sam… Martin Thomson