Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Retaining the largest received packet number (#3541)

Martin Thomson <> Fri, 27 March 2020 05:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080443A0D17 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.008
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.008 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_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 QPVvnywzdOaL for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C85803A0D0F for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2D996056A for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1585286252; bh=zP1wG2YZgaKOh1dzRYRiU18J4iGWG2MBR1uctgHE95s=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=UnjvlkD6j+a0Rd7Q1Rv5PBot8NDaurH4a4zysyDE53ovsOqH+Qx0AB5LQ/5os5LyT cIdXB5T7j08coYx2PBLP8/moLBqXM8n1syQlhHi5+TGDwaGuFvRoESyCkQClOZhhKj XEASbvWEh9AYu4RdaNcTYas/gUGKj+47z6j11a6k=
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:17:32 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3541/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Retaining the largest received packet number (#3541)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e7d8c6cba6cc_485e3fc56d8cd96817426b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 05:17:36 -0000

I really want to understand the use cases that you think that this might break.  Because key updates very much depend on tracking largest acknowledged.

The key updates case has a fairly simple example.  Say you receive packet 10 in key phase 1.  Then 11 in key phase 2.  That's valid.  But if you ACK those and then only remember up to packet 8, packet 9 can use key phase 2 and you won't know that it is invalid.

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