Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RESET_STREAM should be allowed in 0-RTT packets (#2344)

Martin Thomson <> Wed, 23 January 2019 03:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3C3130E0A for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:57:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.552
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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 S4ngDrdwVE74 for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:57:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD812130DFA for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:57:53 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:57:52 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1548215872; bh=FWxujMYEp0O94t5beZfZLhIS98kgp/h23/U1qaR4cD4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=TvD1zeJe/5jQWDhv/NLwJfVEFJV8BF45bVRQh8BpOhca0LLiC6ALRg3S1P+FHm+Ji 4EpC9bhB2m2ulcz5poFSFEFmcm0bJsCA/CW/XtLmLUOSwbJO+O5gKUhQUhnURkYuWV o2ahw6lQSCJEk6BsIQK/h+6tELOpcwuRYsnVKmyM=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2344/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RESET_STREAM should be allowed in 0-RTT packets (#2344)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c47e640b84f9_5cdc3fb822ed45bc32937a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 03:57:56 -0000

FWIW, I think that #2360 is about formalizing a poorly-enforced constraint that we might have assumed already existed.  It's not directly a solution to the problem were discussing.  I personally don't think that the cost of processing frames is significant enough to build additional defenses for.  Generic anti-DoS measures should suffice.

But clearly that's not a universally held viewpoint.  I think we should discuss this in Tokyo.  

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