IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Integrate QUIC text from DPLPMTUD (#3693)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Tue, 26 May 2020 23:57 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 869923A0C40 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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_24=1.618, 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 2t4NwZpjYq1B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D19C3A0C3A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:57:06 -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 8796F2C0EC6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1590537425; bh=6tevBtpYsdHZDQNWcdytqM1guzQ41Om0D3S82SaVQyA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=dXhX9lZD13qG4XhmUHwSab7vyUbA+QsuPnvqAF7wyzuw92LuyO43WVtFebmiTDd+L wlxHYflaDEQyaEd1GjVlBR6hAl9SPq1FB+n66f21GkQXeO649r/bJWd4F8cTd6N8Ef RTd0Sp+l5gclWJvO8ZMLMTPLmCGp+VNMk08+S2eY=
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 16:57:05 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7BC7Q6H2BDU6LXJ2N43GG5DEVBNHHCKNQYNU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3693/review/418755380@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3693@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3693@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Integrate QUIC text from DPLPMTUD (#3693)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ecdacd17975f_b3c3f99d2ccd96c79053"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/tPd0vTdsRdbVH7wZFZN3tb-OIYc>
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: Tue, 26 May 2020 23:57:14 -0000

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.



> +state when the QUIC connection handshake has been completed and
+the endpoint has established a 1-RTT key.

I think that the intent of the text is fine, I was only concerned about the execution, purely from a logical standpoint.  That is, `(handshake complete) && (got 1-RTT keys) == (handshake complete)` because `(got 1-RTT keys)` is a precondition for `(handshake complete)`.

As you both say, there are concerns with probing before this point.  Maybe you can, and indeed it is probably beneficial.  But maybe it is also risky, and we don't need that.  If anyone does want to probe before this point, they are off the books for now.  If anyone wants to explicitly allow that in the draft, that's a design change that needs support, justification, and a separate issue to track.  I don't think we can do that as part of this 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/3693#discussion_r430770249

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email