Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discarding Initial context too soon leads to deadlock (#3395)

ianswett <> Fri, 24 January 2020 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00365120A18 for <>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:19:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S2hmf0r12Lcf for <>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 708521209FD for <>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:19:54 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579904394; bh=ZeGRa8+UXEoLNTNYHDceuRlYQBLI/hHUWU+Cuj0EvE8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=V1XObp/5mUbcLjQxx5/F4c9/lk3rxCqf+ZN92qRWU8JLPl7wGceIeSI7N3A5tz/lC s4vvRC9Nnlu1hJX4r+ezYlPZYwTcy4cgGyPbqB6ohnFQZnEl4NcUv0QOZdYIReUW8R Xk7FGNyo+hScrERymACZ/LYhdtwnGFlSAouY3qIc=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3395/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discarding Initial context too soon leads to deadlock (#3395)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e2b6d8a3dcb1_10f03fc5a26cd96c158445"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 22:19:57 -0000

In that case, the recovery draft says:
"Since the server could be blocked until more packets are received from the client, it is the client's responsibility to send packets to unblock the server until it is certain that the server has finished its address validation (see Section 8 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}). That is, the client MUST set the probe timer if the client has not received an acknowledgement for one of its Handshake or 1-RTT packets."

So in this case, the client should keep sending Handshake packets and if one is received, it'll unblock the server.

There's also the alternate solution to the amplification/deadlock issue I documented in #3161 and #3162

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: