Re: Connection IDs

Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 09 March 2018 02:01 UTC

Return-Path: <jri.ietf@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 4C74A12895E for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:01:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 P6mcS0O37OEI for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x244.google.com (mail-wm0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::244]) (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 25472120727 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x244.google.com with SMTP id i3so1216645wmi.4 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 18:01:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TRNPOCUI1Y2CqWcFHVpvgk0FYBlsoIFOzBqS+vVizh4=; b=j/HKMvSgkNHqgwlHlwjWTOmjUrFC/mkkFXQJuz1jxf4qiPtcRd4cqB2KuhiGVviE91 WFyQb2hDblL70dcvBfQAj/G9bqve83D8SCprR76Ob5i6x8hj6xS9Q641Y5CEQR0gViry QSUFhq04A6RKkAFM6v+ZOZV3pxzYwDc88iwLrwxEZxO43IYkuoXqaLvluv+RSo7hAV4a wTdR2SenrKZtf59M3uDwIRqSQwd8VIXFZ7GnvaAoqPolu/wCdxZ57R5/ItVprIyYOyTo wbDWdXdMBoLTiVdVBq3g/2UTIt4bIJIb6WMmdly48iYSqHXOd25nMcO2JXTgm3usPQkN Q3Gg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TRNPOCUI1Y2CqWcFHVpvgk0FYBlsoIFOzBqS+vVizh4=; b=Dtxf2OokZrjlZyNKLiGSwqoTlj3sOtCB1xpR5Qn7M00hrRGlzogM0AH4q5y1YiXgxD /mqLIKZfZd56x3olPzc4xx/77CudaEtItVC7LDXaxQx9FmjMxYAXLILjHEDET5Tv6Shc 20GUTNBnJ6czCH++t1xE7LpARJaUlDHLlInY1WO/gJbF6u9dZSULrklsU4fkhFswiSwT 8HtOPQDlSf6BvVU0qoAImTTMIQ7D8qdEGc2BvSAaRqy16o59a+ENdeuGo9n8QrAzZen1 dlbuaK44SelNmUMhzzSgMphlrldztfPksog26vjRbPjbEZafz0T121eMkFq8Hhv398O6 O/LQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Em22RfDmmFSSkGmnOq7CCSvP5sr0rInIpoKCr936g6zR6EhD7M Ku7FqbbjX+tBacDRdD6foqSDd5pV/U+HIO9ztXE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuyCmjGdm6ZfUCeiZicEC/jSHqc7zivQFVssmkA5Hp1MiLRwUIaaGASsinmut5JsyDbiCuNkN07op+Dz9uLaqg=
X-Received: by 10.28.216.70 with SMTP id p67mr650156wmg.36.1520560871770; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 18:01:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.195.139 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:01:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <29FB4FF3-54C7-47F4-B5D9-C329A5DA7902@fb.com>
References: <CABkgnnVSCnmzjWOZwQM+ctTxFXVzsVYe6Q3Zzk4yj3LNTYUtHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNo9qmZqmEXBGM4bM6q3EO1FGuUxLSSWsVhNEYsn5u9puQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gMR070JUegQbDw--RNr+0XYiBMwaTM3MBmqUo21u922TQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACpbDccpuNWnX=Y+gKaPxLEjUOnvu+hr9FqH+R6ZspwOfUq-qg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUPJYG-QE4qxfOd-6AoHHgxVq4K=EyRfoxkcvdDF=oaZA@mail.gmail.com> <2894BA64-BB3C-446C-91D2-6BF4A042AB44@apple.com> <CAN1APdf=+6HzfTXAjiaY1ry+6A0THB_JP+4Gc+OLQLXciVtAdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNqXP+G-jPFJbxWDeaoKnoXck-tt6sz_n9g_EfpttvLtPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gOf79R-DxiG5N9Pmji8aKWoEqcek0D--yj8FJzuWYVyEg@mail.gmail.com> <29FB4FF3-54C7-47F4-B5D9-C329A5DA7902@fb.com>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:01:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CACpbDcca3OAC2irOhLhgwHxm8hHKKg3yyn5EhsvOA0iRZc3z2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Connection IDs
To: Subodh Iyengar <subodh@fb.com>
Cc: Ian Swett <ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Mikkel_Fahn=C3=B8e_J=C3=B8rgensen?= <mikkelfj@gmail.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@apple.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11469ee09f0f630566f12aa5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/gckRRQfKmLZmFIZbzhZHSp_BUYY>
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: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 02:01:15 -0000

Removing stateless reset has the downside that clients will take longer to
retry potentially failed requests. However, that's not the question in this
PR, and I'd suggest opening an issue if anyone wants to discuss it.

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Subodh Iyengar <subodh@fb.com> wrote:

> I agree about keeping the conversations separate and I’m in favor of
> keeping stateless reset or some form of fast error mechanism.
>
> Subodh
>
> On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:25 AM, Ian Swett <ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.
> ietf.org> wrote:
>
> GQUIC inadvertently broke public reset(the predecessor to stateless reset)
> for a period of time and it had a very visible effect on average latency,
> so I would like to keep it.
>
> More importantly, I think we should separate the conversation about
> stateless reset from the this Connection ID one.  Those that want to keep
> stateless reset are ok with the potential reduction in effectiveness this
> change can cause and those that want to get rid of it don't care.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 1:17 PM Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <
>> mikkelfj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The only thing is that I am little uneasy about Stateless Reset - is it
>>> really needed?
>>>
>>>
>> I feel the same way.. let it timeout.
>>
>>