Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] introduce a max_connection_ids transport parameter (#1998)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Wed, 19 December 2018 21:16 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 5719A130EC9 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:16:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.064
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.064 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, 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_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 W5ruqTTBWaFe for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:16:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-6.smtp.github.com (out-6.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55598130ED8 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:16:33 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:16:32 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1545254192; bh=b7na5NPjXbOvzfTFk9ACw6hBJhntgTaOpxow+0OcpAs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Zie7JirKjPvASXJ4tiEIoSJLWcgF9ACZbuZbeKZbyrb5KaUfHIkknxNGjbBpLXryn hLdoCecVzHPO+oteq1kiMjWCbGDr3reffurbkSWNKkpQwq4oo+kOr4nvExB+W6LXt1 WBr5qz1IQzPJ/3Q3WaXbjfUYd2DDDXXN+Jk9gnsM=
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab69368f883c29e712f65c4678e82289269b3e9fb892cf000000011832773092a169ce16a7e5d6@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1998/review/186752294@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1998@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1998@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] introduce a max_connection_ids transport parameter (#1998)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c1ab53070c7f_3a903fb900ad45b421131a"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/qN77P-MSFShBDi_3aHSip-QmEeM>
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: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:16:36 -0000

MikeBishop commented on this pull request.



> @@ -3981,6 +3979,12 @@ A client MUST NOT include an original connection ID, a stateless reset token, or
 a preferred address.  A server MUST treat receipt of any of these transport
 parameters as a connection error of type TRANSPORT_PARAMETER_ERROR.
 
+max_connection_ids (0x000e):
+
+: The maximum number of connection IDs that the peer is willing to store.
+  This value includes only connection IDs sent in NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames.

Hm, that's true.  But the reverse creates an odd situation where the server can issue 7 CIDs when the client has said they only want 5, but the client can't (or shouldn't) reduce its value by 2 and constrain itself for the lifetime of the connection because of a start-only overflow.

Perhaps the server SHOULD NOT issue more total CIDs than this, but MUST NOT issue more CIDs via NCID?

-- 
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/1998#discussion_r243078086