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

Marten Seemann <> Wed, 11 March 2020 04:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9D03A11AD for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 I0zeZYQxTllu for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 246C73A11A5 for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32ACC6E1048 for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1583901969; bh=dfX7tBVK5BVwsDOh64ijl5CpCmz/kQIrmzMu5KzPtTA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=q1HXMOruRGDA6RTNm8XS4jmWPaEyR1qBwTyP6q7kuUsXM3UjjTJH+NRL63dTZ9c// M1h2C9IyGReSysBTPz67XcAqXsxcshqOYWKb798T1nVMaax0i58FBuQE4GrBAKOe0r CQ0afJgs9t9dS/68IXo/wnoH9pIdTT5A8qUgH7U0=
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:46:09 -0700
From: Marten Seemann <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
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_5e686d1116a95_77293f95c06cd96046236e"; 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
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, 11 Mar 2020 04:46:20 -0000

Thank you for the explanation, @kazuho. I think I now understood the problem.

> Mathematically, this might be unbounded, but it's more likely that in practice the limit is 2*active_connection_id_limit as it would be unlikely that unacknowledged RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames would remain so once more NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames start arriving. More so as the issuer of those NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames has to have received the RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames.

This would require endpoints to make assumptions about how the peer handles the `active_connection_id_limit` and how it issues new CIDs. This can get complicated really quickly and leave the connection in an unrecoverable state (or at the least a state with less CIDs than it should have). Introducing a new frame, as @kazuho suggested, seems a lot cleaner to me.

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