IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Path and Retire connection ID

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Wed, 16 December 2020 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
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 C8B333A128F for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 15:06:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VVTkAJe4rJTR for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 15:06:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B5263A128E for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 15:06:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xse165.mail2web.com ([66.113.196.165] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx134.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1kpfsS-00111R-1w for quic@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:06:37 +0100
Received: from xsmtp21.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.60]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Cx9jg6wc1zLPb for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 15:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.5.2.18] (helo=xmail08.myhosting.com) by xsmtp21.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1kpfsN-0000Os-RL for quic@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 15:06:31 -0800
Received: (qmail 23985 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2020 23:13:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.106]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.43.253]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail08.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <quic@ietf.org>; 16 Dec 2020 23:13:43 -0000
Subject: Re: Path and Retire connection ID
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Cc: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
References: <160810286972.22457.5330092965264463113@ietfa.amsl.com> <45ce5065-931b-40a8-8167-5dd814dcfacf.miaoji.lym@alibaba-inc.com> <c4823a2d-0b70-4295-8953-9dfbac377e60@beta.fastmail.com> <CALGR9obEDcZ_LK1cjrPKrmCxJ5vpwVs1_-eFcYHhKLKkdg8tDw@mail.gmail.com> <CAM4esxRLJCjQt69Gh+9Bfsbg+9HbvyeEpvrDEgk5NxeMhKQoaA@mail.gmail.com> <7d542cff-e1f3-30b3-a75a-28785877256e@huitema.net> <CAM4esxQSDUtBO6DcVoszG0PSpvE0hq8ZAxSprN3Oy5Zqz-xJGw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Message-ID: <a7091876-ed73-3169-f31f-8426fc989dcd@huitema.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 15:06:30 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxQSDUtBO6DcVoszG0PSpvE0hq8ZAxSprN3Oy5Zqz-xJGw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------5D02D93FF0A4E28D32869EE9"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Originating-IP: 66.113.196.165
X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.196.165/32
Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.196.165/32@xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: Pt3MvcO5N4iKaDQ5O6lkdGlMVN6RH8bjRMzItlySaT9WLQux0N3HQm8ltz8rnu+BPUtbdvnXkggZ 3YnVId/Y5jcf0yeVQAvfjHznO7+bT5x6h2yQpzTslcOqazQkKtAFKj/EwzSHE5FGYwwjsNRPCAP9 7CsSjKgI1YHtbd/5C+PmD6wdmZPcItWbGe10hXJtyz/MWLF6jnm7fdxjsJMmvxOMEZrAzcbOYTBU Hb9yjjUYFoLz2NZcguRHblw+ZN9KE5LN1n8YXzQY0mQUNzTGA8teNG+NZ/BA4WKnDt42T7xH3v3Q 7PQeNoNQjwiv3IhNPpDsdaHHqGG7YXgprtn5XLToE7g5LY8o1a6sSJrLl3xdARnv/HGR54G9CHRY hyVqYO/Ae1h1hLGGi4ebv387hThA9A+LrmkGouiRB8qN/5RbHDa6yUUKFnWNneAcuva3BS+iyyNq bT8dUMXMJ4tUCMj6G37ZfAMLceP5aNHPt26RBupu5v1nytoNnc138GfEJRQ2qC7jjynPIHPNqSn4 QTXUjLjYWQt1/5xnQymMoPsgr/U0flMcy2Vi/IcBgY4arPaiJ1W6hAyiRC61jekdwIcXNugoOEbH RyFULpSjm7jZ1h/HfDRQ5Ig8VhPsPE8NDxdyIeJZUl7T+dBx2dACj9PVglyn2M1Ne3VuFRksqHyw N32UeNjqVpETPEqdvYdt2JUne37EdXOqrRyXv4wznlHrmlySB4/3KmDn4gGdOYM11lqdy1V/0aEk MCdb3YpWUo4/+EUytKrR9Md9I2Rs10Nldw8hSjIPaAW/99pf1FpPCC/cRgvQKtcrMMueERx33sRc 5gSVFqL3zDTSaQud6jowfh2pT17cJUIwpMbqDKKIaIzNoZzswxuMaWjBAlpwL8WkRKDb6EVo0ekL xxn4iPUf9oDBqtClgM5jH/om1Q5UomG0v+rwIiID/kwKc8V5Tj9+FRkaOS/DNjANmb8tO61SbYdY AwdpaVzHW7wHO7YhEWyJzIkwSFAW0Pw8uiKeubcolFl/rX+2ReQklqJDASQX2Id+W5hjJNcdGs0+ iHjXODmj5PX/tZQU3bYnWKpb
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/v7VUS7rIm7XSbaPtoYyr-K6KfkY>
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: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 23:06:47 -0000

On 12/16/2020 2:44 PM, Martin Duke wrote:
> This is not how I read the draft at all. There are two separate paths, 
> no? client->server and server->client?
>
> 4.5.2:
> This has no direct effect on reverse paths from this endpoint to the
>     peer.  If the peer wants to direct the endpoint to abandon such
>     paths, it should send PATH_STATUS(abandon) frames for the relevant
>     paths.
>
>
> So IIUC PATH_STATUS refers to the peer's CID/identifier, and 
> RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID refers to the sender's CID/identifier, so both 
> are necessary to tear down both ends?

Let's get some experience of what works or not. If we believe that the 
client is ultimately in charge of resource management, then a logical 
sequence would be:

1) Client asks server to abandon path x.

2) Server does that and sends RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID(x)

3) Client sends RETIRE_CONNECTION(y) -- the value that was used for 
"return path".

-- Christian Huitema

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status