jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
7.1.10. <ins> isolateSession Boolean false When set to true, this property will initiate new Connections using as little cached information (such as session tickets or cookies) as possible from previous connections that are not entangled with it. Any state generated by this Connection will only be shared with entangled connections.  Cloned Connections will use saved state from within the Connection Group. Note that this does not guarantee no leakage of information, as implementations may not be able to fully isolate all caches (e.g. RTT estimates).  Note that this property may degrade connection performance. 7.1.11. </ins> The following generic Connection Properties are read-only, i.e. they cannot be changed by an application. <del> 7.1.10.1. </del> <ins> 7.1.11.1. </ins> zeroRttMsgMaxLen

Related discussion:
text: I have no opinion on Gorry's comment, but I'm a bit mystified by the "shouldn't be in the API doc" argument. Perhaps I'm not understanding the purpose of taps-interface? I thought it was a qualitative description of the controls offered to the application, which this clearly would be!
I would define taps as an interface to control network connections. So flushing state is a good thing in some scenarios for privacy but not really needed to handle network connections.
See also -- this surfaced that we have drifted on connection group versus context, which we need to fix in arch.
Martin to write a PR against API to propose a context API that would provide the intent of this functionality. Alternative is to NOP this in the API doc ("connection contexts are too implementation specific to expose in a general way" or similar)
A second alternative is a one-bit fix: a selection property that requires a given connection to be in a separate connection context (which implies a separate connection group) from other connections created in the preconnection.
A very nice approach IMO, thanks for doing thisI like this approach for the simplicity, but it still solves only half of the problem we have with connection groups vs. connection contexts. I am fine with merging this, but IMHO it does not fully Thanks NAME looks good to me now.
Code change:
committer's contribution to the group and provides PCS with regard to the committer. <del> A "partial" Commit that references Add, PreSharedKey, or ReInit proposals but where the path is empty.  Such a commit doesn't provide PCS with regard to the committer. </del> <ins> A "partial" Commit that references proposals that do not require a path, and where the path is empty.  Such a commit doesn't provide PCS with regard to the committer. </ins> A "full" Commit that references proposals of any type, which provides FS with regard to any removed members and PCS for the

Related discussion:
text: This PR introduces a notion of a proposal type being "path safe", in the sense that it is safe for the path to be omitted. (Better phrasing welcome!) The field is required default, and allowed to be omitted only if all the proposals in the Commit are path-safe.
Thanks for taking care of this fix! One suggestion: Instead of having a global list of which types are path safe and which ones aren't, we could make it a property of the proposal. Maybe something like this: Regarding the name, the only thing I can think of is that we could invert the property and call it : In fact, I think I'd be slightly in favor of the latter proposal.
Discussion on virtual interim: OK to keep using type TODO(NAME "path safe" -> "path required" Otherwise clear to merge
The authoritative definition (in Section ) of when to include a is not the same as the summary below. For example, if an implementation adds a custom proposal type, according to the summary, a path is required, whereas according to the definition above it, no path is required. Ultimately, it depends on the nature of the proposal and the desired security guarantees if a path is required. However, I think the safer option is to require a path by default and maybe leave it to the definition of the respective custom proposal to explicitly specify if a path is not required.
Code change:
If the client has used all the allocated CID, it is supposed to retire those that are not used anymore, and the server is supposed to provide replacements, as specified in QUIC-TRANSPORT.  Usually, it is <del> desired to provide one more connection ID as currently in use, to </del> <ins> desired to provide one more Connection ID as currently in use, to </ins> allow for new paths or migration. 6.2.

Related discussion:
text: From PR from NAME
Let's do another editorial pass and evtl. some re-org first and then address this issue. I think we all already agreed that we only need one of the two. So we only need to decide with name we keep.
I prefer to use the name "Path ID", as it is more intuitive in the context of multipath.
The conflict was solved. LGTM.Sounds good.
Code change:
13.2. <del> In cases where ICE is used to establish some kind of session that is not real time, and has no fixed rate associated with it that is known to work on the network in which ICE is deployed, Ta and RTO revert to more conservative values.  Ta SHOULD be configurable, SHOULD have a default of 500 ms, and MUST NOT be configurable to be less than 500 ms. </del> <ins> ICE agents SHOULD use the default Ta value, 50 ms, but MAY use another value based on the characteristics of the associated media. ICE agents MUST NOT use a Ta value smaller than 5 ms. If an ICE agent wants to use another Ta value than the default value, the agent MUST indicate the proposed value to its peer during the ICE exchange.  Both agents MUST use the higher value of the proposed values.  If an agent does not propose a value, the default value is used for that agent when comparing which value is higher. NOTE: sec-concheckbw shows examples of required bandwidth, using different Ta values. </ins> <del> If other Ta value than the default is used, the agent MUST indicate the value it prefers to use in the ICE exchange.  Both agents MUST use the higher out of the two proposed values. </del> <ins> 13.3. </ins> <del> In addition, the retransmission timer for the STUN transactions, RTO, SHOULD be configurable and during the gathering phase, SHOULD have a default of: </del> <ins> During the ICE gathering phase, ICE agents SHOULD calculate the RTO value using the following formula: </ins> <del> where the number of pairs refers to the number of pairs of candidates with STUN or TURN servers. </del> <ins> For connectivity checks, ICE agents SHOULD calculate the RTO value using the following formula: </ins> <del> For connectivity checks, RTO SHOULD be configurable and SHOULD have a default of: </del> <ins> ICE agents MAY calculate the RTO value using other mechanisms than those described above.  ICE agents MUST NOT use a RTO value smaller than 500 ms. </ins> 14.

Related discussion:
text: Ta and RTO settings are now the same for real-time media and non-real-time media. An appendix has been added, showing bandwidth consumption based on different values, and different ufrag value sizes.
Code change:
Section 9.1.  The "mid" value MUST match that specified in the offer. <ins> An "a=rtcp" line, as specified in RFC3605, Section 2.1, containing the dummy value "9 IN IP6 ::", because no candidates have yet been gathered. </ins> If a local MediaStreamTrack has been associated, an "a=msid" line, as specified in I-D.ietf-mmusic-msid, Section 2.

Related discussion:
text: lgtm
I think the dummy candidates should be v4 not v6 as many things just don't do v6 but other than that looks reasonable. You don't really need to specify the address at all the the lines when you don't know the port can just look like a=rtcp:9 With no IP address or family
NAME The IP6 vs IP4 is described in URL, so this isn't a JSEP thing. Given that this is part of the trickle spec, and only trickle endpoints will get these candidates, I don't see any problem. As to whether a=rtcp can just have the port, consider the case where RTP candidates have been gathered, but no RTCP candidates have yet been gathered. In that case, we certainly need to have the full a=rtcp:9 IP6 ::, so I think it makes sense to include it in all cases where RTCP candidates have not yet been gathered.
I don't care much about this so fine if not change is made. I agree it is a trickle-ice draft issue. However, when I read that, it seems that it would be fine with "a=rtcp:9" with no address. It seems the reason we used 9 was to provide something that stuff that did not implement trickle ICE would not barf on. I have no tested but an address of "IP6 ::" seems like something that has high odds of stuff barfing on. Anyways, no big deal with me one way or the other. On Sep 12, 2014, at 7:49 PM, Justin Uberti EMAIL wrote:
Only trickle endpoints will even receive an offer with these dummy addresses and ports, so compatibility with old non-trickle stuff is not an issue. LMK if you have any further concerns, otherwise I will merge later today.
I concur that we should merge this. , Justin Uberti EMAIL wrote:
On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Justin Uberti EMAIL wrote: ah - my bad - makes sense Merge it !
Code change:
IANA is requested to update the "Reference" field to include this document in addition to previous values from that field. <del> 10.3. </del> <ins> 11.3. </ins> This document will request IANA to add the following values to the "HTTP Capsule Types" registry created by HTTP-DGRAM:

Related discussion:
text: NAME let's discuss that on . I'd like to merge this PR first then decide on a plan for before submitting the next revision to the datatracker
Splitting {ADDRESSREQUESTROUTEADVERTISEMENT} into ...V4 and ..._V6 would result in smaller capsules that have fewer error conditions. It would also keep IPv4 and IPv6 logic distinct.
I don't think the size of these capsules matters given their rarity. I can see the error condition argument but it's pretty minor and would come at the cost of making the specification longer. I don't feel too strongly here, but I think I have a slight preference for keeping things as they are.
I agree with David that size is problem not a big concern. I think having one set of capsule is less complex.
I also have a preference for keeping the capsules as they are with versions included; it also allows the route advertisement capsule to include routes for both v4 and v6 in one capsule, which I think is very important. I wouldn't want to lose that feature.
I similarly have a preference for keeping v4 and v6 in one capsule and agree size is not a big concern.
I just chatted with NAME to see what error conditions he was thinking of. Upon discussion (v6 route advertised when only v4 address is available), we concluded that this is not an error case, it's just a route that's not yet usable. We've concluded that this is something that we're comfortable leaving as-is.
Implementing this on the client I was wondering if there should be a way for the client to ask for the server for an address without specifying what address it wants. This could allow a VPN client to mention that it wants an IPv6 address or not. If we think this could be useful, we could encode it as or .
I believe asking for the Any address is what we discussed previously, so +1
You mean ADDRESS_REQUEST(IPv4-0.0.0.0/32) don't you. I think the format of the request works fine. But we do need to before we implement this into the specification.
Yes — if we have this, one option is to always have an ADDRESS_REQUEST expected from clients, and then there doesn't need to be signaling. Or we do the simple solution to 54 to say "I expect to send N capsules with my request".
Code change:
IANA is requested to update the "Reference" field to include this document in addition to previous values from that field. <del> 10.3. </del> <ins> 11.3. </ins> This document will request IANA to add the following values to the "HTTP Capsule Types" registry created by HTTP-DGRAM:

Related discussion:
text: You're right this could be a potential solution to . Let's discuss them together tomorrow
Regarding IPv6, I think a standard request that would make sense is asking for any /64. I guess that works fine with this idea too?
Oh that's interesting, if the IP Address is or , the prefix length is a hint for the requested length. I like that.
IETF 114: Add an editorial sentence to "remember, what you ask for may not be what you get, especially with regards to address families". A request should be paired with a response, multiple requests can just say "you have the same ones you had before". Clarify that it's cumulative. Also solves unassign/removal of addresses.
So there appear to exist some downside with the timing of the interactions when one want to use Address-Request capsule. So the basic problem is simply that the proxy will assign an address prior to the Address-Request capsule has been received, thus preventing the proxy from processing the request in the right context. So lets assume that the client has already created one connect-IP request with a limited scope and been assigned IP-A. Then it want to make an additional request for another limited scope proxying and would like to get the same address assigned. Due to the separation between the HTTP request for the Connect-IP and the capsule Address-Request a server can actually process the whole HTTP request prior to receiving the Address-Request. Resulting potentially in that another IP address assignment (IP-B) be provided to the client, despite it asking for IP-A to be assigned also to the request. So does the HTTP request needs an indicator parameter to tell the proxy to wait for one or more "request" capsules from the client before processing the request?
Out of curiosity, in what scenario would the client "like to get the same address assigned"? It makes sense for the proxy to decide to reuse addresses to save its address pool when the scoping allows it, but why would the client care?
I could imagine this happening if the client was trying to resume some previous session that it lost due to an outage? Seems to be niche, but it's certainly possible.
So the most obvious use case for this is to request iproto= CMP in combination with for example UDP.
Code change:
IANA is requested to update the "Reference" field to include this document in addition to previous values from that field. <del> 10.3. </del> <ins> 11.3. </ins> This document will request IANA to add the following values to the "HTTP Capsule Types" registry created by HTTP-DGRAM:

Related discussion:
text: Then getting ICMP for another IP address then the one you already have UDP for is mostly useless if you intended to use the ICMP messages for hints when things fails for you UDP based protocol. I would note that for an endpoint liking to do P2P NAT traversal stuff getting an IP address rather than using Connect-UDP does make sense as it ensure the client has control. It enables the IP address for its UDP traffic to be Endpoint-Independent Mapping (RFC4787). This might be niche usages but I would like to avoid creating artificial barriers that makes things impossible or at least hard to realise.
Thanks, this makes sense. Should we suggest that clients bundle the ADDRESS_REQUEST in the same packet as the HTTP headers and suggest that servers check for those before responding?
I am still worried that this creates issues as your request may not fit in a single packet to begin with. My solution would be to actually move the address request part into the HTTP request itself as header field. That would ensure an atomic operation and no risk for errors.
Magnus, is your proposal to require, or to allow as an option, for the address request to be moved into the HTTP request? Why not bundle the capsules over a reliable delivery mechanism instead?
I first of all want to ensure that you can do a request that ensures that for those cases when it is necessary to interpret the Connect-IP request in the context of desired IP address it can done. Without uncertainties or requiring to have wait time to see if there are capsules incoming. So I think primarily allow as an option. I think a question back to your usages, do you have cases where one would need additional capsules to correctly interpret the option. Should we look for an other solution than the one I proposed to better cover the necessary functionality?
I want to be able to continue to do ADDRESS_ASSIGN capsules during the lifetime of the connection to support e.g., IPv6 Privacy extensions but without having to delegate the entire subnet. So I don't want to move to header-only.
I think NAME is describing something similar to the / capsules that we had in the original Google . The only difference is that we would add an HTTP header to say "start off in atomic mode and wait for atomic end before sending addresses and such". While I think this does sound useful, does it need to be in the core spec or could it be an extension?
Code change:
IANA is requested to update the "Reference" field to include this document in addition to previous values from that field. <del> 10.3. </del> <ins> 11.3. </ins> This document will request IANA to add the following values to the "HTTP Capsule Types" registry created by HTTP-DGRAM:

Related discussion:
text: Is there any reason to not bring back the capsules?
The only reason I can think of is to keep the core spec as short and simple as possible. But if we think this is an important feature then I'm not opposed to bringing back .
I agree with the sentiment of keeping the core spec short and simple, but the trade-off is also knowing what the minimum viable featureset we can always rely on is. If we conclude that capsules are in that set, that IMHO weighs towards including them. Given that both Magnus and I have now presented use-cases for atomicity, I think this finally swings towards including?
I agree with that
So why I used atomic here, was due to the split between HTTP and Capsules. So I don't see this issue currently motivates the need for ATOMIC capsules. I really would prefer that the necessary parameters for the CONNECT-IP request are in the HTTP request, either in the URI or in an HTTP field. To be clear, I understand the need for the capsules as they are useful for doing things after the initial request, but creating this binding between the HTTP request and the capsules are creating its sets of complexities. Likely bigger than duplicating the carrying of the necessary information results in, especially when they may be use cases related.
I agree I with Magnus and think we should specify a ay to add the address request to the http request. If there is a timing dependency it's better to put all needed information into the same request than specifying extra and complex logic to achieve the same in hindsight. That doesn't mean that we don't need the address request capsule (for later use in the connection). I think we need both.
I dislike having two ways of conveying the same thing. How about a simple HTTP header that tells the receiver that there are 4 capsules coming right after the HTTP headers?
I'd prefer to avoid "atomic capsule" starts and ends. If we need a way to guarantee inclusion of the local address in the first request, having it be in the HTTP request makes sense, either as another URI parameter, a header to say what address you want, or a header to say you will have capsules that need to be parsed before responding. That latter option is flexible, certainly, but could be over-engineered. Another option is to tightly scope a header to the use case we think is relevant.
Code change:
IANA is requested to update the "Reference" field to include this document in addition to previous values from that field. <del> 10.3. </del> <ins> 11.3. </ins> This document will request IANA to add the following values to the "HTTP Capsule Types" registry created by HTTP-DGRAM:

Related discussion:
text: If the use case is "please use the same address as this other request stream I already have for connect-ip or connect-UDP", we could just have a header to say for any connect- request that it is entangled with another and should share some properties. I could imagine this even without CONNECT-IP. Today with private relay, we have to ask the proxies to prefer to use the same local IP for everything in a connection from the client, but letting the client choose what gets grouped might be even nicer. This option also lets you issue multiple requests, say they should share, without needing to know exactly which IP any of them will get assigned first.
Unfortunately requests and headers are end-to-end but streams are hop-by-hop so there is no easy HTTP way to have a request refer to another request. I'd be supportive of adding the header but I'd push back on adding a header that duplicates a capsule. This is starting to feel like something best-served by an extension
You could solve the correlation by having a "group" ID that you attach to all related requests. No need to refer by stream ID.
What is the scope of a group ID? Connection? If so it's the same as stream IDs.
I think this should be some extension, but it could be a UUID too, doesn't need to be connection specific.
Ah, thanks. Yeah UUID would work. Back to the issue at hand, I propose this feature request get moved to an extension.
All of these alternatives strike me as much more complex that the semantics of . I'd rather we have a single mechanism even if it's slightly more powerful and restrain it's use than try to invent new ways to solve each problem that arises.
Atomic doesn't help coordinate between requests on different streams, etc, so it's not really solving the full problem here. Either way, I think this is something to defer to an extension.
Headers don't solve that problem either, so I'm not sure that argument really makes sense in this context. Cross stream coordination seems out of scope to me.
So you are taking this into directions I did not intended. I am just asking for how to ensure that the server does not answers the client's request prior to having received any capsules if they are coming.