Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Client that does not PAD does not negotiate? (#4021)

Gorry Fairhurst <> Thu, 20 August 2020 08:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86FFC3A09BC for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 FkooZXfZJlCl for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D0EF3A09C1 for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2AC5E0FAD for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1597911254; bh=n0+gJuD4CY5tLdZF1UA+dW5+oy3g3I1FcLnYP0FE4l0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=MV8XeFt0X0ZaGxgeuG/UNU2JJjiuqL5c60hBFgpJusl05FxmQpNqJ9ehGkkdJN4Wd VQwP3I9AQR6EYn1bI9DmSvpdMfpiCTMR2d154TiVA4f1eDBZMfSiZf8ACoHGdnj48G mtlLbtQe/VBIZRatiHab752tHzRn3D+9l+6AQ2aA=
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:14:14 -0700
From: Gorry Fairhurst <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4021/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Client that does not PAD does not negotiate? (#4021)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f3e30d68d2c9_3a6f196449624f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gorryfair
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: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:14:16 -0000

I agree with the logic in this thread, but this seems far too subtle/clever and others will be confused at this point. However, I read this as the remote checks that the minimum size is sufficient. That means not padding this breaks the protocol. Why doesn't that require a MUST for any version (sec 14). If it doesn't then this doesn't yet explain under what cases the present "SHOULD" can be violated.

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