Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confirmation condition (#2881)

ianswett <> Sat, 20 July 2019 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F401D12019C for <>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, 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 diGNzoRCUy0T for <>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 516E312014B for <>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:37:18 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1563655038; bh=3U06CWTUFzOuxp77zqtqXndHGvPTj1ZWIp2iu+Kg0+Y=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=dWR0nV+UXFX4dBoKZEnlnr7wfFqSD3E10U0rr6w/WIavvc8b0A0iG66E2VfzlNZL4 uftOy61B0vX+syRYG03nORbqjm1QzMMol376w3iPGcaXTTYQ9DJjX8aQ41K/2ES+Yz k1JU/qLI/JajFW75fer12zKRBkOSkPbfjAQ9+MeE=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2881/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confirmation condition (#2881)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d337b7e63922_3e213fe838ccd96c1761423"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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, 20 Jul 2019 20:37:21 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.

> @@ -391,6 +391,15 @@ sent with 1-RTT keys, and the highest value of the Largest Acknowledged field
 in any received 1-RTT ACK frame: once the latter is higher than or equal to the
 former, the handshake is confirmed.
+: Unless ack-eliciting packets protected by 1-RTT keys are sent by an endpoint,
+  the handshake might never be confirmed by an endpoint.  If the peer does
+  confirm the handshake, this could result in perpetual retransmission of
+  Handshake packets, which cannot be acknowledged.  To avoid this problem, in

I thought the whole point of QUIC is that frames or data are retransmitted, not packets?

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