IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Lost initial MAX_PUSH_ID is unfortunate

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Tue, 27 August 2019 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <lucaspardue.24.7@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 BED501201EF for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.747
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 q01ZhKyjGk-1 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2b]) (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 38DED12004D for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com with SMTP id q16so607001vsm.2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7v3Ls9skjnDbn06s4xRMauSVQn87ixPVVK/8bhdD7qU=; b=uQo53LHY9Fwe0fhtcGWqn7kbVu3eMxjStBUQHWS6puXFdeRneTaslVZLReoPdcsuWG lASBPRdWQDOLcpzSDqcpjnDvy1tmQKHd4sewtm25zc4G/sOax9o5i108yZcIz0JNNnjz 3nRKvdQMD7DNHZSlHdXKWDao9r5snGC/mHSbVv2S5ZMkuqGC9pk079nV2iTmfuz+4zaC ufOfPgBl3qkoeD4Gj6+o/DEcsHQDc7X4enefKAT3rdzWgxakw8ItFWdQuxk6B2eExEtt sdzclgX2pwxT2jJwGxLRH6QUgCOzfHihrKKK9JjOiZAf+McAH4bVIIkKDbUHDHmPRx+Q 38bA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7v3Ls9skjnDbn06s4xRMauSVQn87ixPVVK/8bhdD7qU=; b=rMbj5Qj4t0nGxlP4qZdOB68FNPXAYSY7sLhqixKi5NasMkI5daA+t9JD3RY6dTwXS3 PvXt0RQ8NBq3DxVOxuyDdvTrsDwUIJVUlf3l58Jyr9Epykys/BaOq7LrdoeQqC2c4Pfe egpssazNKC1OVl1zTC+bbzvCk/uQaydHyECMT7CciAku2EC65a9dxJCHULazhtcp66Ga OUp1baIBD7Vyy/5VJRL83zXWDESygys/x4UQJtmRPET+h65iwsZ/c2ESJJ2tT1ZxUwyP sODBCzCe09n8mihfwHUSUIiW3BuPLEyDXR/UcppGwUDZzUjqdGLKeraYMoqryzZVBlJ3 jcTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVFhUtrnd2U+3D8vkaYb6NPTiJVQm4gXsK/Yx2PdHoJXTQpqZEE JQyfMXi5HCA3ui0hoPcKyOk4O4OaHcwlrFl4F0GYCQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzZqtkrTOiQGpgckz0C+tR9VqsiwhE867GogtfIR6/6E2PmpSZGniTvnu0Xp/yO0/mVgyzBVQMfQA30khoLqKc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:100f:: with SMTP id q15mr737755vsp.100.1566947186155; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJ_4DfSE4_2GR5peGeRuWnixgdc9ucGiXtab=c0fXbqedFHsgA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ_4DfSE4_2GR5peGeRuWnixgdc9ucGiXtab=c0fXbqedFHsgA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:06:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9oao74uEne=T=M_8bYNMmM9M6UURoW6Khpkx+tNH-k7MXg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lost initial MAX_PUSH_ID is unfortunate
To: Ryan Hamilton <rch=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000069a58a05912152dd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/gRIbW5sRqINEWCZh6zF1FjzrkmE>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:06:29 -0000

Hi Ryan,

This doesn't sound any different to the case when a server receives a
request when the push ID limit is reached; a client may have attempted to
update the limit but the delivery or processing of the frame happened after
the request was received.

Because this can happen at any time during a connection, I would be opposed
to adding special case code for the initial max value; it seems it would be
simpler for implementations to have one path for dealing with this
eventuality.

Cheers
Lucas

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019, 23:48 Ryan Hamilton, <rch=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
wrote:

> Howdy Folks,
>
> In some testing we've been doing, we realized that if the packet
> containing the initial MAX_PUSH_ID frame is lost (or reordered until after
> the first request) then the server is unable to push responses. This is a
> bit unfortunate. We could, of course, bundle the MAX_PUSH_ID with all
> packets that send a new request until the MAX_PUSH_ID is ACK'd. This feels
> a tad inelegant and I wondered if there's any appetite for an alternative.
>
> We've been talking about the prospect of putting SETTINGS into transport
> params. If we did this, we could add a new setting for the initial max push
> id value which would be guaranteed to be delivered before requests. This
> seems like a much more elegant solution to the problem.
>
> What do folks think?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ryan
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email