IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 11 March 2020 03:53 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 413383A10A6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.696
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.696 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_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 DGdOlniwMTFL for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BD763A109F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-2e54e43.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2e54e43.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.27]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9FD1C00A5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1583898835; bh=+v7nb845TnBUVOVcWO76eDhcca+VIWG1SPR8qQTNkZ4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=KKLmKG/cz6dme5k80B779fELqmzqOYDtH5Ngc8I1jLw6pkKU57hk30uYuijudJFC5 Q2lsOJSTribb8POnJsR78X68o9jplJ9A/k5PXLKoSx7hKcmYLcSQxGaBEW7uJ6LXAd LTWYAEBwBvic26Zuhb6SvvTi+1aOAmBMUBA69GLI=
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:53:55 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5GHGCPEE5X4DWBZIV4ORA5HEVBNHHCFAMG5E@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509/597431194@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509@github.com>
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_5e6860d3db3ac_447c3feb4b8cd9643143b8"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/wveiAnlwk54lQQyAuqV5wsctNLs>
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: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 03:53:58 -0000

@marten-seemann 
> I'm not sure I understand the attack here. Why would an implementation need to keep track of acknowledgements of RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames (other than for purposes of loss recovery, but then this applies to _any_ retransmittable frame type)?

This is about keeping state for retransmission for recovering loss. As stated in [my first comment](https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509#issuecomment-597366048), the issue is unique to RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames, because it is (ab)used for providing the peer additional credit, compared to other flow control that uses a dedicated frame (e.g., MAX_*) for communicating credit.

-- 
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/3509#issuecomment-597431194

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status