[quicwg/base-drafts] Why no minimum Handshake packet size during anti-amplification? (#3876)
Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Wed, 08 July 2020 20:07 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 E4FCF3A07A8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 13:07:01 -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 VplKO8ON9qdc for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 13:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BFDD3A077D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 13:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-f62aa54.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f62aa54.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.68]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 350885204D7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 13:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594238819; bh=0kRi58zcS6h2AaVXeHGzeZK1Fea8beR+tQB6Kvo0be8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=a52QCyfOmsBcRtdFyQZkXX0Vt8dNMzHRtTH0aeI+iXl+A5pbiXJ9mko0oDg72ccvd 7qOQxixbzeBERuOM1GPSI8YqBpxTpmuHYx4Ea/nZLgMKVZ30W2NoZwt/yNyLktKdaC kq5Zoav95e8xfqPrknYUYjpRgUngWXTuRaL26UTE=
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 13:06:59 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3K46ZV55JKXWX2NOV5CIEGHEVBNHHCN5ESU4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3876@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why no minimum Handshake packet size during anti-amplification? (#3876)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f06276324a01_43293f997c4cd95c81237"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/4o4caGDHVl5a1Yx_NVQyjkab0Vs>
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, 08 Jul 2020 20:07:02 -0000
Recovery, Section 6.2.2.1: > 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, and has not received a HANDSHAKE_DONE frame. If Handshake keys are available to the client, it MUST **send a Handshake packet**, and otherwise it MUST send an Initial packet in a UDP datagram of at least 1200 bytes. As the sentence currently reads, the size requirement only applies if the client does not have handshake keys. However, since the server's anti-amplification limit is in bytes, not packets, sending a small Handshake packet will not enable the server to make forward progress. I would suggest the sentence be rearranged to require sending a packet in a 1200-byte datagram, and switch only the type of packed based on possession of handshake keys. This might be the intent of the current text, in which case this issue is editorial. -- 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/3876