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

Kazuho Oku <> Wed, 08 April 2020 01:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E081C3A0414 for <>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.266
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MpwuEBmrT_8B for <>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1219C3A040E for <>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F818C0511 for <>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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 <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3547/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
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
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: 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

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: