Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain extraordinary conditions that lead to sending a Handshake packet (#2598)

Benjamin Saunders <> Tue, 24 September 2019 02:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96EF120086 for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.281
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.281 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, 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
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uFgrdlMQI9qR for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36312120046 for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED5E6E0768 for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:50:39 -0700
From: Benjamin Saunders <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2598/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain extraordinary conditions that lead to sending a Handshake packet (#2598)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d89847f8eef1_55133fdf448cd96813297d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: Ralith
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: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 02:50:42 -0000

I think the logic in the recovery draft misses some of these cases entirely. The rule in draft 23 is:
>  the client MUST set the probe timer if the client has not received an acknowledgement for one of its Handshake or 1-RTT packets.

but in your example case there is not necessarily any unacknowledged data to transmit in a probe, and a `PING` is forbidden at Handshake level, leaving no reasonable options to compose an ACK-eliciting packet.

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