Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remove timing guidance (#3474)

From: ekr <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 15:01:29 -0800

ekr commented on this pull request.

> +An endpoint might need to stop accepting previously issued connection IDs in
+certain circumstances.  Such an endpoint can cause its peer to retire connection
+IDs by sending a NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame with an increased Retire Prior To
+field.  The endpoint SHOULD continue to accept the previously issued connection
+IDs until they are retired by the peer.  If the endpoint can no longer process
+the indicated connection IDs, it MAY close the connection.
+
+Upon receipt of an increased Retire Prior To field, the peer MUST stop using the
+corresponding connection IDs and retire them with RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames
+before adding the newly provided connection ID to the set of active connection
+IDs. This ordering allows an endpoint that has already supplied its peer with as
+many connection IDs as allowed by the active_connection_id_limit transport
+parameter to replace those connection IDs with new ones as necessary.  Failure
+to retire the connection IDs promptly when requested can result in connection
+failures, as the issuing endpoint might be unable to continue using the
+connection IDs with the active connection.

Isn't it failure to stop using them, not failure to send RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID that will cause failures?

-- 
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/3474#pullrequestreview-370793637

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2020 22:04:25 -0700

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

```suggestion
parameter to replace those connection IDs with new ones as necessary.  Failure
to cease use of connection IDs promptly when requested can result in connection
failures, as the issuing endpoint might be unable to continue using the
connection IDs with the active connection.
```

-- 
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/3474#pullrequestreview-370919148

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:59:45 -0700

@MikeBishop: there are a couple of outstanding comments -- can you handle those and close this off?

-- 
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/3474#issuecomment-601928137

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:32:10 -0700

@martinthomson pushed 1 commit.

26a4eff9bb5622bd65bb947941cfdf0b053e8b0c  Not retiring, but stopping use

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3474/files/a41be1873d412fa3026cea0ecd9b5cdc99c4bf33..26a4eff9bb5622bd65bb947941cfdf0b053e8b0c

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:41:57 -0700

Merged #3474 into master.

-- 
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/3474#event-3153204251

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 08:39:26 -0700

@MikeBishop commented on this pull request.

Both, actually.  If you use them and the remote routing infrastructure no longer recognizes them, you'll get a (potentially valid) Stateless Reset.  However, if you stop using them without retiring them, the peer MAY close the connection on you.

-- 
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/3474#discussion_r398672507