Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow endpoints to generate traffic keys asynchronously (#3874)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Thu, 06 August 2020 01:05 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 99F713A0B10 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 18:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 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_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 aVqe3RW1e3Ma for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 18:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-27.smtp.github.com (out-27.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5B173A0B0A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 18:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-9bcb4a1.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-9bcb4a1.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.84]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086F5902627 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 18:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1596675928; bh=LW6Q88iz73pziGAu6EY4btzCJ0PAcNBxGpky4PHEl3s=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=U19TGAXxqu1yHjcW2MVYPF63Jn9siuzGWazm59Sy9h8/ZvynTrmL7athHbgRe0Nyj qOmeCyQxu1ZsnTHnbEqzzkG2M/ON662/sf6BTakIPknWznBTnCAnC3ylqnzQJtfmeJ nGnkILOyUzJRTm2PJF6D/X0DX5EuewG7qAKpefVI=
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 18:05:27 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5XEX4567WJX65L7OF5G44FPEVBNHHCN3MY3A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3874/review/462119697@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3874@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3874@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow endpoints to generate traffic keys asynchronously (#3874)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f2b5757ec38a_17f916f811001b"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/rS0emKiUOWFsQwz7Va-o80KvHq4>
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: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 01:05:32 -0000

@kazuho commented on this pull request.

Thank you for working on this. Looks great to me. I just have one editorial preference, but that's definitely not a blocker.

> @@ -389,6 +398,13 @@ rttvar_sample = abs(smoothed_rtt - adjusted_rtt)
 rttvar = 3/4 * rttvar + 1/4 * rttvar_sample
 ~~~
 
+An endpoint might postpone the processing of acknowledgements when the
+corresponding decryption keys are not immediately available. For example, a
+client might receive an acknowledgement for a 0-RTT packet that it cannot
+decrypt because 1-RTT packet protection keys are not yet available to it. In
+such cases, an endpoint SHOULD ignore such local delays in its round-trip time
+sample until the handshake is confirmed.

I would prefer this section moved above line 358 (i.e. "When adjusting an RTT sample using peer-reported acknowledgement delays, an endpoint:"), and this SHOULD repeated in one of the bullet points, as we do for the ack-delay due to buffering on the receiver side.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if you chose to do that as a separate editorial path after merging this PR.

-- 
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/3874#pullrequestreview-462119697