Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Limit RCID state (#3547)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 08 April 2020 01:43 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 E081C3A0414 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.168, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, 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 MpwuEBmrT_8B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1219C3A040E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-2e54e43.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2e54e43.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.27]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F818C0511 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1586310215; bh=h8Qwkp/UXrlxVB8cBTGjcW9ZiMZaEtKW6nlUkWU9YsA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=EI6Ktw48D0jJi4LmC55PvTISdXAN6C6MobAMqci6qcTF5jQe+TgZypUPTj2GfQbwV Rp1sveDh2+WQGoWwMZUcqQcOXnmw27UxpKlf6aAOODy4R0xvXOkmyqOL53gqlVUo4W 6+PQQ0kIvg/wOdyUmaUaJCNEgv6M11HZKgcjVM8w=
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 18:43:35 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2EUGRCOXH3IEVIRLV4TEGUPEVBNHHCGFYIAU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3547/review/389599975@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3547@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3547@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Limit RCID state (#3547)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e8d2c47a3f34_37cf3fa7b9ccd968131773"; 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/sw3sIjGoCHVtX5EOftL0te-sSWk>
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, 08 Apr 2020 01:43:39 -0000

@kazuho commented on this pull request.



> +An endpoint SHOULD limit the number of in flight RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames
+to bound the necessary state. In order to minimize delay in common situations,
+the limit on the number of in flight RETIRE_CONNECTION_IDs SHOULD be at least
+the active_connection_id_limit. An endpoint MAY choose to treat having too many
+connection IDs in need of retirement as a connection error of type
+CONNECTION_ID_LIMIT_ERROR.

I'm fine with @martinthomson's proposed text. 

It gives a recommendation, and also provides a dedicated error code to be used in such case. When a well-behaving endpoint receives that error code, it can blame that the peer is doing something wrong.

I think that this is the minimal fix that we need to apply, and I think that it is a reasonable way of making progress at late stage. If we are to apply a proper fix, my preference still goes to adopting #3553. It removes the need for "lagging," therefore, provides us having less complexity in the long run, at the cost of requiring a wire-format change.

-- 
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/3547#discussion_r405210341