Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Require peers to check if RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID sequence number is valid (#3037)

Kazuho Oku <> Tue, 17 September 2019 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B313B120884 for <>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, 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
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zMzlCGiL4717 for <>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62579120870 for <>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:40:18 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1568731218; bh=ojfPWnY+C8LGpHxJgbYYj26DneXNy5Zrs1u73gy8yR0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Ueg/D6PurtVQ2GfPg9whDdKR98+OLfZ2IOB7ay5mkXRRxbpDzX45WxbrEgJnstM6+ Y/v9HB1FTCc6V8vliHMOGAUaUG1NJCD1pOZvlba7tDFdOLEqq7HwQIG7h7TxDwYypI Zp1iodSRa83ZV1lljNJHF4sEuI4iRxkcnRxKZ8wg=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3037/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Require peers to check if RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID sequence number is valid (#3037)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d80f0524c1dd_7a713fd7e3ccd9681124a9"; 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: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:40:27 -0000

> However, if you sent NEW_CONNECTION_ID, I don't think it's optional to not correctly process RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID, and that's the question here(I copy-pasted the paragraph above).

Thank you for clarifying your position. I'd be perfectly fine if the intent of the proposed change is to  require validation _if the endpoint has sent a NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame_. My problem has been that I have been uncertain if the proposed change meant that; I'd be happy to proposed editorial tweaks to better clarify that.

@nibanks By saying "force a peer to start using new connection IDs", I think you are referring to the Retire Prior To field of the NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame. That's a SHOULD (as the text currently says), IIRC we have agreed on that.

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