Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] rate-limiting of CID issuance needs to be allowed (#2436)

Kazuho Oku <> Sat, 09 February 2019 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B4513106A for <>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 17:07:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 iy9zFIuHkRFJ for <>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 17:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EABA131069 for <>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 17:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 17:07:00 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1549674420; bh=63v9CshPXgdUBSaXdJtQHi8EdzE2EysxLj7Vti2sIQY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=qioo6hND9cycPQNwtzF0poogm6yZ/E07mhdL8+NBC/OgkIRmV/2on7z7fiRoYikiP xqITrJJeVhOBBleoS1fk4RBP6IaprUDz9kPt2VUjr3MhunzH0+4L4zXLnODloljHFX +UwmUlHDalzE6WWJRoqYKDHwWWy+AEpesHpyDfwM=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2436/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] rate-limiting of CID issuance needs to be allowed (#2436)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c5e27b46673b_3cbb3f9247ad45bc451fc"; 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
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: Sat, 09 Feb 2019 01:07:03 -0000

> I am concerned about non-HTTP uses cases, and for that matter also about mixing the layers. Transport should not rely on GOAWAY, and HTTP layer should be not concerned with refreshing CID's.

Fair enough. Though my point is that _for HTTP/3_ (which happens to be the primary target of QUIC v1) just capping the number of CIDs is totally fine. The proposal does not mandate such behavior. It's merely clarifying that such behavior is permissible.

When you are to define an application protocol for QUIC v1 that requires the connections to survive lots of migrations, you would be required to clarify that the servers should support that, regardless of the outcome of this issue. That is because, as stated in [my previous comment](, migration is an optional feature of QUIC v1. Running out of CID is no worse than connecting to a server that does not support migration in terms of the transport spec.

To put it another way, while I can understand your concern, I think it's orthogonal to this issue.

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