Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify Actions on nonzero Reserved Bits (#2280)

[martinduke <[e-mail]>]

See MT's first comment. We need consistent-time crypto results.

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 6:06 AM ianswett <[e-mail]> wrote:

> *@ianswett* commented on this pull request.
> ------------------------------
>
> In draft-ietf-quic-transport.md
> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2280#discussion_r246392825>:
>
> > @@ -3402,9 +3402,10 @@ Reserved Bits (R):
>
>  : The next two bits (those with a mask of 0x0c) of byte 0 are reserved.  These
>    bits are protected using header protection (see Section 5.4 of {{QUIC-TLS}}).
> -  The value included prior to protection MUST be set to 0.  An endpoint MUST
> -  treat receipt of a packet that has a non-zero value for these bits after
> -  removing protection as a connection error of type PROTOCOL_VIOLATION.
> +  The value included prior to protection MUST be set to 0.  An endpoint MUST treat
> +  receipt of a packet that has a non-zero value for these bits after removing
> +  packet (not just header) protection as a connection error of type
>
> @martinthomson <https://github.com/martinthomson> 's suggestion is good,
> but I'm confused why you need to remove packet protection to know the bits
> are not set to 0. Isn't removing header protection sufficient?
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2280#discussion_r246392825>,
> or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AXRMEdPDZinhGkRgBaT3EYniSzAqQ9oAks5vBfd1gaJpZM4ZlOXd>
> .
>


-- 
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/2280#issuecomment-452767293