Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Required state for retaining unacked RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames is unbound (#3509)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

I know that you have characterized this as "leaky", but I'm not sure that I understand exactly what is being leaked.  Nothing is lost in #3547, except that the endpoint requesting retirement has to tolerate a potentially extended period without old connection IDs being retired.

In case this helps, I have no big preference between #3547 and #3550.  There is a certain elegance to #3550 that might tip me toward that, but it is slightly more disruptive.

I prefer either of those to the more disruptive change in #3553, which also has the downside of strongly encouraging connection ID changes in order to preserve a clean separation between active and retired.  #3553 doesn't force you to drop old connection IDs.  However, the encoding of the frame is just too complicated for me to accept.  I would prefer forcing a clean separation than having a complex encoding like this.

#3548 is a non-starter for me for the reasons stated.

-- 
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/issues/3509#issuecomment-605767369