Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding outside QUIC packet (#3333)

ekr <> Fri, 17 January 2020 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F5E120098 for <>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:46:36 -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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 j5X3b9O-FZjA for <>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:46:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C993120025 for <>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:46:34 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:46:33 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579286793; bh=3tcWBysEdA707/OfCmETsIWr+KyBa69AkJoF5ki3vRs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=iuHuwk7IlWvae6DediHZI6Jo4QbkFVYImJsn/lIHSkeWrSAkTAsn3ofUilKu1biYi vO/wgayLEKuZMkvl+TgqpFR8Vb1XJIF+QAqogYfcYzz17e/tli6mpwnzTNluMK3qth vMRU6FRxXLcaou+nHiIzt5hDQvVpY9nG94ZWfT5k=
From: ekr <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3333/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding outside QUIC packet (#3333)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e220109666be_5b113fe74f6cd95c923db"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ekr
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, 17 Jan 2020 18:46:36 -0000

Well, this is lawyering, but it doesn't say "by adding", but rather
" necessary". My argument here is that it's not necessary if you
pad in the datagram.

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:36 AM Kazuho Oku <> wrote:

> My point is that while I'm not against making an editorial change stating
> that a receiver should process coalesced packets of a datagram until it
> sees a broken packet, I would not prefer adding a statement that implies
> that a client might pad outside of QUIC packets, because doing so is might
> have negative effects, and trying to resolve those negative effects are
> likely to introduce complexity.
> To be clear, my understanding is that this issue is about a misbehaving
> client failing to talk to some servers. The specification says that an
> endpoint MUST expand the packet to 1,200 bytes by "padding to packets in
> the datagram as necessary," (section 8.1.3
> <>)
> which explicitly means that padding should happen at the packet level, not
> at the datagram level.
> We might even argue that some servers not handling those broken datagram
> is a benefit, as it helps us find bugs in the client.
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <>,
> or unsubscribe
> <>
> .

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