Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does it make sense to try 0-RTT after Retry? (#2842)

Martin Thomson <> Wed, 26 June 2019 09:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A5A120255 for <>; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HUzpgs_VHD_J for <>; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD763120234 for <>; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:45:34 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1561542334; bh=VXWxa/q5x/fFc3Kq86HNMpl1MvyxJ9omOGh8Rkyf42o=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=XL5vSiPxfNTNut7Wc9reFlmKFeK10l6ExDjaoC+tieejxw87qovD6oiddYVRkVVt7 yF5nZIR7vRlh18bcTy+hjkW15+OViQn+D7GycUvf5MQKaNYVKbPifCiy0KNainY3Y9 oNohhoQAweC5pS5/lGfJEgBEZ3IQAQT8fCBsNuXI=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2842/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does it make sense to try 0-RTT after Retry? (#2842)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d133ebe4e367_5adc3f8cbdacd96833961c"; 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
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: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:45:38 -0000

It seems like you have sorted this out.  I have no problem with using "SHOULD" over "MAY" here.

Note that the reason we have this distinction is logical separation of the mechanism of Retry and 0-RTT acceptance.  Retry strictly precedes the connection attempt.  No point in blocking 0-RTT if you have to Retry.  HelloRetryRequest is different in that certain characteristics it might cause to reset affect whether the 0-RTT works.  Retry is required to use the same ClientHello, so there is no need to have the two interact; you can treat a Retry almost as a loss event for the first Initial and everything works fine.

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