Re: Deadlocking in the transport

Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com> Wed, 10 January 2018 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mikkelfj@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D03612D7E9 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:56:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 BThcsHW4V3l8 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x22d.google.com (mail-it0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22d]) (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 9B89512D7E8 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:56:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id f143so1366665itb.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:56:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=snBlLEWD3NIZ+AUjImN0U0VBcMlUQTLG/+Ga2270GtY=; b=t7NQRdSOXyC2/8Aa/sjS4ddx01n8qXQB+fLR86Cqbgu1qLvZF+o9bcykrmxD6h3748 T+BallKMOQzPFRIYUMUAnBbVkixk/7W14K9Cmdx/zZXF0sjQbcZPEWMsvikWBSR8hNFP vCXf++NZWevq4lQ9MUDs79vbDmG2KX5+MBiT2fkjU5H/lHL+q+tnSC7q1rwb7SJjf3ZP 5nbIYfRB7eRyTzchh3zdo24FnCoI6h40wD1CzVR1AV9Oy6DXIx8IlfhaTI/dGbkINDpk UOIc9k8F1/UYHHWHsoqvwUt9isMVRjk5dsCR37j7bzCGY1tOuMm9tTHJ7CpHqHoOk8ZY owRA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=snBlLEWD3NIZ+AUjImN0U0VBcMlUQTLG/+Ga2270GtY=; b=fe54xuHnSLIPSvR5ed0uFkhG7HJAChkvb6HBueCeKfequKXlLGhfmTIXxmka2eLuB6 /cJ07cv5DHlm08B7UK3u+KDiYSBQJl6b7TCuGNzpk5KT7Et54o5MKvCn+M9FS1lW5jiR LpU5rFCga5YdLrfd5whW+8O1Fu3D4Js/P5KI9ZAMwYZOgs+wg0Dp7aXxLrPMZxYczuE9 zxABrmNQ7ZUHHhwaRyefA0lbToEGN/akfPCGSaCm39fIG853jh08jhnbLfyaN1nc2w75 xxBTyGL3XGW5PVmCKSKQjJ2sTeKFVFWKgUNXKoInYdnm14fyaSEfpqmTuQRXtEbFh4HO 0Vvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyteVkeufRmvGYTNUkS84NxR8o6tF3/rHFvnGoWGDQrZm1pzzIzc1 E7PjSvtdpz8+W6t8N6Da2gw/sFXnacuSay/wGbk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovNzre8eLnt/9wk+Wm7FL2Z4DYCu5/T644McR5gxFsWyMqhV+hCunxGSZkIz/iPAt6WzIs5UgN/P3eUaIoICkc=
X-Received: by 10.36.0.209 with SMTP id 200mr14533339ita.4.1515624984984; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:56:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:56:23 -0500
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mikkel_Fahn=C3=B8e_J=C3=B8rgensen?= <mikkelfj@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWtmprf291pBgTOrfi6yU9tXSfKi5J5uQpm7Z4JHuiGWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnUSMYRvYNUwzuJk4TQ28qb-sEHmgXhxpjKOBON43_rWCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGD1bZYV7iHg_YarUMqUSnpbAB2q8dwEWO=dHE2wbw8Oea_zfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD-iZUY-Y-MO_T74JmP6B9XVj=91eVovfcWnE=9s9kd0Ji+CnA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGD1bZa7ugOTT11qOKfCm4NFdi+t-pdrXnscWHgg0bO5tgUqmg@mail.gmail.com> <20180110194716.GA30573@ubuntu-dmitri> <CAGD1bZYiDOakLYNppMBr=99JreX3Xr2zkS7O2DRNfvr_o0NUbg@mail.gmail.com> <20180110200646.GB30573@ubuntu-dmitri> <CAGD1bZa-ZOw5J6oSWBYdk3uYHOpGvak+vwGp0XsZB44zbLvRrw@mail.gmail.com> <20180110202357.GC30573@ubuntu-dmitri> <CAGD1bZbPM3wnatLLN5938wGPo3e1qmxnGzobSTym6XX3W8FNJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnU3CQkvd7m+G80sCOPJfzb_=HonbRDSQJC8wqD_uWoj0w@mail.gmail.com> <CAGD1bZbrtMEJE-OOXqG02yWmHy_2baEvaZu=rFCBTtcq94JrOg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWtmprf291pBgTOrfi6yU9tXSfKi5J5uQpm7Z4JHuiGWg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Airmail (420)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:56:23 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN1APddrGuGyBYXmX5yi+Jjc5oTc=OXZBWo4Pg00VkWJWu9y_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Deadlocking in the transport
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Cc: "Charles 'Buck' Krasic" <ckrasic@google.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c14088d7c30a056273f06b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/AvJLPuNlZvcvrvbe-CROj0cgbMU>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 22:56:39 -0000

I think that this needs to be in the main spec. Failing to document
this sort of pitfall could be fatal. Does anyone disagree?

I agree with the idea which I find it important. But I disagree with strict
priorities. It should be possible to for lower priorities to communicate
with reduced throughput which is readily handled by a pacing algorithm.
There need to be some guarantees for priority 0 though.