Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify Connection ID text (#784)

From: Igor Lubashev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 02:01:29 +0000 (UTC)

Clarify Connection ID use for 0-RTT and 1-RTT packets.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/784

-- Commit Summary --

  * Clarify Connection ID text

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (9)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/784.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/784.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/784

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 05:10:13 +0000 (UTC)

martinthomson requested changes on this pull request.

I'd leave that first bit alone, unless you can come up with something better.  The rest is good.

> @@ -670,7 +670,8 @@ field for a 0-RTT packet is selected by the client.
 The client can send 0-RTT packets after having received a packet from the server
 if that packet does not complete the handshake.  Even if the client receives a
 different connection ID from the server, it MUST NOT update the connection ID it
-uses for 0-RTT packets.  This enables consistent routing for all 0-RTT packets.
+uses for 0-RTT packets.  This ensures a predictable origin of connection IDs for
+all 0-RTT packets, see {{connection-id}}.

This phrasing doesn't make sense to me.

The point is that all 0-RTT are labelled with the same connection ID, therefore they (should) end up in the same place.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/784#pullrequestreview-64796102

---

From: Igor Lubashev <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 21:04:04 +0000 (UTC)

igorlord commented on this pull request.

What I meant to say is that we are trying to make all packets of a particular type to always have CCID or SCID.  Mentioning "routing" here seems out of place -- network elements can use CID for whatever purpose they like, including routing.

I'll reword this.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/784#discussion_r141968053

---

From: Igor Lubashev <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 21:10:20 +0000 (UTC)

When the server receives a Client Initial packet and decides to proceed with the
 handshake, it chooses a new value for the connection ID and sends that in a
 Server Cleartext packet.  The server MAY choose to use the value that the client
 initially selects.
 
 Once the client receives the connection ID that the server has chosen, it uses
-this for all subsequent packets that it sends, except for any 0-RTT packets,
-which all have the same connection ID.
+this for all subsequent 1-RTT packets ({{packet-protected}}) and only 1-RTT
+packets that it sends.

Actually, this conflicts with # 558, which states that "Client Cleartext" also has SCID.  I'll fix that, too, and repost.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/784#pullrequestreview-66272854

---

From: Igor Lubashev <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:51:27 -0700

Proposed connection ID clarifications, consistent with #588. 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/784#issuecomment-333264288