Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Definition of "active connection ID" is misleading (or the name is) (#3200)
Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com> Thu, 07 November 2019 03:00 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 4F68B1200C7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 19:00:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 GkAocUgiMZ4P for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 19:00:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-6.smtp.github.com (out-6.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 400F2120052 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 19:00:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-943b171.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-943b171.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.22.59]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037EE1C0352 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 19:00:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1573095616; bh=Ql8KM/QPo0bZ9lJr2jj0KjbvghAl2OuQFp/gSk/dRAk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=qNQ8BbtZJv7pqGCh/rpx38dea3QMI+sUuHFasCJYcLJPms7eTQ7hqakO9qr5xfe2f PBpJ/kdcw+foyK4ChwVsQoeKuZSLspwoQV9QUiWMhztEMvDr/7cxrf8JXyKtNuYXbE gd3IPou5tQ+aaBWRNyo9yCBwkVYNAo1ctQI/pfSk=
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 19:00:15 -0800
From: Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK44RK34PKPY3SA7ZDV32C5T7EVBNHHB53YOA4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3200/550598930@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3200@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3200@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Definition of "active connection ID" is misleading (or the name is) (#3200)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc388bfe7bc2_a1e3fb8e6ecd96474758a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
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/vCjwgMeYLBzDQq2lYrFz94dbpsI>
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 03:00:19 -0000
> 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
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Definition of "active connec… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Definition of "active co… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Definition of "active co… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Definition of "active co… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Definition of "active co… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Definition of "active co… Martin Thomson