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

ianswett <> Tue, 24 March 2020 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19FF63A0C2A for <>; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 09:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.543
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.543 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_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01] 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 Qos4WRs2ooyK for <>; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 09:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B12673A0C14 for <>; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 09:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 09:39:09 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1585067949; bh=LB4/8HP08FiLITBNd8MAhbpF/pKZbpmgiB8ESAxU4MI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=yPxrKnPpIUjCaCWmjGuQbpi5bj94vJ4BWqexreN7n2hHRkL5ihO4OQMRtU3a8Ryr0 UVT38MDkhrnceD2AVxms2Eh+O1pMnzpl4o8Vvg3XLZHKDX3swmuuFqP6dYvSrJEjzk KzyxzdaCEP+hDuVn6nVMgdV27bWEAh12YdnRZ+lc=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Required state for retaining unacked RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames is unbound (#3509)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e7a37adafab0_36853fb7536cd96022029a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 16:39:16 -0000

Similar to @martinthomson I'd prefer to acknowledge the problem and indicate that peers may want to limit the number of unacknowledged RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames to the number of connection IDs they support.

The other option I can imagine is to make the RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frame cumulative, which provides a strong incentive to use connection IDs in order. Though we may have to make an exception for the connection ID in the received packet if we did that.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: