IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] loss of only two packets can lead to an unrecoverable situation (#2267)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Mon, 28 January 2019 05:03 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 0D30F130FA2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 21:03:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, 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] 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 lfRB2HiQneP1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 21:03:34 -0800 (PST)
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 E6BD0130FA8 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 21:03:33 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 21:03:33 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1548651813; bh=eIccXUaLx+bKlgMU56SEGrYPItnFifGDPmaqFhl6wGo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=LQkqZZaaAX6IM61qJ49pWEJbXrwCt2rpOtR5YNA07aTuozFKRZGR4YyCQN3k6X0HF mHcPMK7Kp1PBe4+OO4SPWQgwEeyCLgMi3fa+8nhUlmf+bl4BLODT4ztKEvLf/AN4HA RSgvRvN/b0R9pF0n7NZfnCS+QcFPcrEA/61ixI6g=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abb8eeb09b0950f4576805ee8f5da15f2b7b7c660e92cf0000000118664f2492a169ce1784eaec@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2267/457999885@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2267@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2267@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] loss of only two packets can lead to an unrecoverable situation (#2267)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c4e8d2575d_7c843fa24f6d45bc1117695"; 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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/m8omfqC9Da-eXWD_nKuj0dH17ao>
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: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 05:03:36 -0000

@marten-seemann 
> I think the cleanest solution here is making the server send a HANDSHAKE_DONE frame in 1-RTT once the handshake is complete. At this point, it can immediately drop the Handshake keys.

That's much more aggressive than what is required now.

At the moment, we keep the handshake keys 3 PTO after the client learns that all the handshake data have been received by the server (see 
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2267#issuecomment-455036849)

I think it makes sense to use a 3 PTO timer to avoid having negative side-effects to the congestion controller, and I do not understand why we need an explicit signal (Handshake_Done).

-- 
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/2267#issuecomment-457999885

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status