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

Lars Eggert <notifications@github.com> Wed, 19 August 2020 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8B73A0B2F for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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_24=1.618, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KxJVYYb4xbTr for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00F003A0ABE for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-0f78100.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-0f78100.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.25.48]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1FF600E30 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1597847557; bh=k5AqrRrbJVr4zN20cdfyij/Zgnaf+AKejGgdVbNu4T0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=NwqvMFj8BYth3ceiD2TXDEBSUj/Bpj5/secuP8uyPfymUVJ0o9dqF8GAdv1ogZlVP UShjwYTc0juTVSyqd7mZn1Vq/h9rCu9+FuWyrTsfiYJexRYI3QvsRXpqwIhJ6fLqmV LCGHLpvEs+vWa8uEg0DDKR2EQYZGbgB6YFga9Et4=
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:32:37 -0700
From: Lars Eggert <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZ5IHOQN3JIIQOZW355JEMQLEVBNHHCRJGOKE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4021@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Client that does not PAD does not negotiate? (#4021)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f3d38053d448_4993196454994"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: larseggert
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/3yCmtKNQlPIHsB6rwoRVUiOQbvo>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:32:39 -0000

(Broken out of #3214.)

> The size of the first packet sent by a client will determine whether
>   a server sends a Version Negotiation packet.  Clients that support
>   multiple QUIC versions SHOULD pad the first packet they send to the
>   largest of the minimum packet sizes across all versions they support.
>   This ensures that the server responds if there is a mutually
>   supported version.

- Are you saying a client that does not PAD does not negotiate? If so: What is the logic behind that design decision?
- I don’t read that as it assures what it say. To me, the padding assures the client can send this side of packet to the remote endpoint.
- Does this agree with what is written in section 8.1 on padding? and Section 14?


-- 
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/issues/4021