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

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Sat, 20 July 2019 20:37 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 F401D12019C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 diGNzoRCUy0T for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 516E312014B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; 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; d=github.com; 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 <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYYAOJVV5QXZ453Y253ICW75EVBNHHBXQFRGE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2881/review/264510547@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2881@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2881@github.com>
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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/lTt7ZH5-IUMLKeZfZPgPtHgMXJE>
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: 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.
 
+Note:
+
+: 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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2881#discussion_r305592337