Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix Recovery Pseudocode (#2907)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Fri, 23 August 2019 14:14 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 B50061200E9 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 07:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, 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 GADly4g_Ly8g for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 07:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C42C6120047 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 07:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 07:14:53 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1566569693; bh=SN/b+HCxHIoC/tZ5geU+eBYJ0ue5SCYey+4ToEljq3A=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=sCgZpBdzOV+3QRwGChOOlwcQLtjTushnKL4zlb0F2WajSrXDZHIjmXTIhLLDlQaYl 8vvh725wAEDD+ESa03IR3vtNU0pM7OL0DzrNTpUigglo/CCjgpMfgy/m7fcxTZUGYZ CNjh/NME76vs44gcAjY6pyu/5o7Es1qWSBJoWjo4=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4YS5ACXXGGGHIMLCF3NU2W3EVBNHHBX66EHQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2907/review/279026265@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2907@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2907@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix Recovery Pseudocode (#2907)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d5ff4dd25b6_64033ff9f90cd964295457"; 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/mgi3QtfpbaLZvQGBwNv-Hr7P_3g>
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: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 14:14:56 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -581,13 +581,13 @@ data.  If no data can be sent, then the PTO alarm MUST NOT be armed until
 data has been received from the client.
 
 Because the server could be blocked until more packets are received, the client
-MUST ensure that the retransmission timer is set if the client does not yet
-have 1-RTT keys.  If the probe timer expires before the client has 1-RTT keys,
-it is possible that the client may not have any crypto data to retransmit.
-However, the client MUST send a new packet, containing only PADDING frames if
-necessary, to allow the server to continue sending data. If Handshake keys
-are available to the client, it MUST send a Handshake packet, and otherwise
-it MUST send an Initial packet in a UDP datagram of at least 1200 bytes.
+MUST ensure that the retransmission timer is set if the client has not received
+an ACK in a Handshake packet or does not yet have 1-RTT keys.  If the probe

I think Martin's right, this should be 'and', since if the client has 1-RTT keys and has nothing to send at lower encryption levels, 

But now that I write that out, would it be better to say "received an ACK in a Handshake or 1-RTT packet."?

-- 
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/2907#discussion_r317152240