Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Required state for retaining unacked RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames is unbound (#3509)

ianswett <> Fri, 27 March 2020 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D477A3A0A3D for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 05:06:39 -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 Sr_VXBuud9N8 for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 05:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CD6E3A0A28 for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 05:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6C48C18BE for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 05:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1585310796; bh=QHf7mN78LoERyRVO8r66wtHZxN9tBsou1dfCxR5F/ig=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=TV7x/wjNpov2VP8rkSPlXPCJXkXqNr/W0zDomacN+uFnpLfZq8G73u2gbmY3ezYGH 8E5qJsNtQqsP8WcXzcqGGkbue1axMXcZ1N4ezZ2/5UkAwQEoDEWeKwTMgr817JUpc4 7nkGfpG0yDCNvLQTxtyyQC4RjCZp2hNU95nrOyDY=
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 05:06:36 -0700
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Required state for retaining unacked RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames is unbound (#3509)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e7dec4c7d438_5723ff7dcccd9681000f0"; 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
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 12:06:40 -0000

The cumulative idea is very appealing to me, _minus_ a future with multipath.  If two or more paths are active at once, I don't know how the peer would know that if the frame was cumulative.  The only option would be to ensure the two(or more) CIDs in use are adjacent, which is possible, but may require switching CIDs more than should be necessary.

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