IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Limit sending by the anti-amplification factor (#3640)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Sun, 10 May 2020 20:33 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 01C913A0BBE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 May 2020 13:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.48
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.48 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_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 oCq1J0--zl3Q for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 May 2020 13:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EEAE3A0BA9 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 May 2020 13:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-d93c4b6.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-d93c4b6.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.47]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC4AF6E0768 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 May 2020 13:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1589142802; bh=+Q4Wo+W0H0BhecuZ5xROTNtIOg49iko8V9Z7Hvbf2hQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=0J2cnB/+RUsSXWgvo3UH2rtuiSSuhxkP9NiF242zQ6YLCn+xW589SN/S6/LDSj3IM R4O6lwWznP1QTHU+DltfQ9xVwK4PSLUvnhu2PzX0bg9hrVkqIscppZzhIcnXLCZG4h UR1YOZNPHMPwQQ7yCCoxrgTEUOo++0+UURvctbcw=
Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 13:33:22 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYEA4R4AMMNPPFIMMF4YRDBFEVBNHHCJL2E7I@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3640/review/408779129@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3640@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3640@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Limit sending by the anti-amplification factor (#3640)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5eb86512bc52e_57fc3f845becd9601159729"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/AdY2O24c0T1vLwwvV-rWYCsG144>
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: Sun, 10 May 2020 20:33:33 -0000

@kazuho approved this pull request.

Thank you for the quick PR.

I've stated my slight preference, but the text looks already :+1: to me.

> @@ -752,6 +752,12 @@ twice the maximum datagram size. This follows the analysis and recommendations
 in {{?RFC6928}}, increasing the byte limit to account for the smaller 8 byte
 overhead of UDP compared to the 20 byte overhead for TCP.
 
+Prior to validating the client's address, the server can also be limited by

How about saying "can be limited further"? I think that might better clarify that it is a `min` of the two.

-- 
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/3640#pullrequestreview-408779129

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email