Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we still need Retry packets? (#1233)
Subodh Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Mon, 19 March 2018 09:45 UTC
Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 88DA9126DFB for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 02:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.605
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 RstossrRDv87 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 02:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from o7.sgmail.github.com (o7.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62A971243F6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 02:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=AP5jMLQSomuuMTLGWa8UJl2Vj40=; b=ipN8TRTTTaBxef1c +2yCd42pXmttCby8M/7OYhNiPMrf15Kg1vjEJwozWEPxvjB+2fFZP9INh2JpWpLx Q/rASzH9adWt7RXM8MtWxPEkiZNr+oSLALJ7j4v6q+2dCKfqndaH2XtZO6Amw84o tMqfh8aB10wBhkues9qNQn90p0c=
Received: by filter0286p1las1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0286p1las1-6642-5AAF86D0-1B 2018-03-19 09:45:52.858993755 +0000 UTC
Received: from smtp.github.com (out-3.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.194]) by ismtpd0006p1iad2.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id ZqTfmX3MTvi4nI1YtbNbsg for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:45:52.593 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:45:52 +0000
From: Subodh Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba2eb5b59982fec7bcea648976ca080cdebe0937392cf0000000116c748d092a169ce1241ad3b@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1233/374154641@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1233@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1233@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we still need Retry packets? (#1233)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5aaf86d0a3673_5bea3fde1b5f2f383249b0"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: siyengar
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak33inZRehjppmL6NsRiLJ1ICSlHgeRURIZInw Qcx8zcOvx574AHJ01cBXdYoILBTqgMy6CvLrqPmxF29tX5ehT1xcK+kLzoAUe2dhkZaYfkA3VdNuJX hHvXChSdfh39H6Kv0MespSg2cjxkfE3I3roeMRu55U1AzaxD8CY65ETRAUeUyaPypEwEGI3gxIJUOs A=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/wltSgfaXHhxTk2jRMFqbRVeVyzw>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:45:54 -0000
@ekr I think the client shouldn't know what the difference is between those two cases and should react the same way. For the clients it's a stateless reset either way. My thought here is that the TLS layer provides an API to say whether or not the message that was received was a stateless reset. Generally I'm leaning towards the principle that if an endpoint can know about something via an API, we shouldn't need to signal that in a framing layer. -- 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/1233#issuecomment-374154641
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we still need Retry p… Martin Thomson
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we still need Retry packe… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we still need Retry p… Subodh Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we still need Retry p… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we still need Retry p… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we still need Retry p… ekr
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we still need Retry p… ekr
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we still need Retry p… Subodh Iyengar