IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] No need for RCID if the peer increases Retire Prior To (#3550)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Sun, 29 March 2020 00:47 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 97EEC3A0C40 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 17:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.474
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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_28=0.726, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 WWiSOwKjxehg for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 17:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AD2E3A0C3E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 17:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 17:47:01 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1585442821; bh=rfsnzCAbeF0jUMPVukvhtrQW+IEIGELWoEcNF6nK4FI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=QfSJsqTTOkSfR0mKuqN0dR2QCpvnzRZH/DOPozlGh8rD1omZVgZ0aYse1aCRbTWGX 9E9HAL59U8hpNPsRJdJfR7Wks/D/8SbG8v8c1NMhtFt2NgcJRh0lpPeI/clTlEzcja 2t+hhB1Mm/IBDoKfvvumpqg2sKSPf8Zkb0eyE0vc=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6CM5K53RSX5CJ6RT54RPIQLEVBNHHCGJORCE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3550/c605539706@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3550@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3550@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] No need for RCID if the peer increases Retire Prior To (#3550)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e7ff00578feb_6e2e3fcd6accd96465430"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/qPim25lLetH8FX9TzP9gpTSGfPE>
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: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 00:47:04 -0000

Thanks for reminding me @kazuho I think this text mitigates that issue:
"An endpoint MUST NOT provide more connection IDs than the peer's limit. An endpoint that receives more connection IDs than its advertised active_connection_id_limit MUST close the connection with an error of type CONNECTION_ID_LIMIT_ERROR."

However, if a peer sends a NCID and doesn't increase Retire Prior To in this case, then it's unclear which RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frame(s) were received.  In that case, is it ever clear which RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames were received?  I'm not sure #3547 actually solves this, or just makes it much less likely?

I'm starting to think we need a max_connection_id in RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID(or a separate MAX_CONNECTION_ID frame) as a flow control style mechanism to solve this fully?  I think this PR may be a good change anyway, but I'm not sure it's sufficient.

-- 
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/3550#issuecomment-605539706

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email