Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Definition of "active connection ID" is misleading (or the name is) (#3200)

[Marten Seemann <[e-mail]>]

> FWIW, the alternative approach (that could better match people's intuition) would be to retain the definition of "active connection IDs" as connection IDs that are issued and not retired are considered active, and change the normative texts.

@kazuho I agree, that was my understanding of the spec, since this is what the definition of the TP implies to me:
> "An endpoint SHOULD supply a new connection ID when it receives a packet with a previously unused connection ID or when the peer retires one, unless providing the new connection ID would exceed the peer’s limit.

I think it might be worth considering to slightly change the definition of the TP though, such that it includes the CID used during the handshake (and the one provided in the SPA). Otherwise, when the peer provides the requested number *N* of CIDs, you actually have to store *N+1* CIDs, until you retire the CID used during the handshake. Furthermore, on the peer's side, after having provided *N* connection IDs, it must take care of NOT issuing a replacement for CID 0 when it is retired (whereas all other CIDs need to be replaced).

-- 
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/3200#issuecomment-550598930