IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The QUIC-TLS draft should define anti-forgery limits for packet lengths up to 2^16 (#3701)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Fri, 25 September 2020 01:25 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 A68723A091A for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.695, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 ErtHkGJwlLJM for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-25.smtp.github.com (out-25.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B9893A0917 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-b2150d3.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-b2150d3.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.113.12]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A8E88403D4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1600997100; bh=VWs/Q4H8orKZrwpFIluvnt3S2ro5gpUO2sUUNwvl4ho=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=nUMB8soaEb33R9YY5e/y5RJ40aACV9bJ9S4s8wev1nKlRZvwK64ylsBixIfJZlUXy +iTP7q33LngLYIKLBUFwrCSFpkohjqXEznRxVXaLAbA2yANafvbEmoIvAjTjwbOoAb mpQl1CfQpPsmep0ZOAA1OaDXnegYIE7dN6od5iuY=
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:25:00 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4MIFUKTVS76FFKBUN5PET6ZEVBNHHCKRFAVA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3701/698669604@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3701@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3701@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The QUIC-TLS draft should define anti-forgery limits for packet lengths up to 2^16 (#3701)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f6d46ec5b9a7_2b4b19f018978d4"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/CB9J2jDOVwe9tgVfYcZ-pQDHHxc>
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: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 01:25:03 -0000

I believe the process says that design issues cannot be closed without a call for consensus and this was never marked as a design issue.

@mnot created a flowchart at some point, but I'm failing to find it.

Given the difficulty of deploying even 4k packets, I don't foresee this being a practical problem in the near future.

-- 
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/3701#issuecomment-698669604

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email