Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How many datagrams can a client send prior to validating the path? (#2135)

MikkelFJ <> Thu, 13 December 2018 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00E21130DCC for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:13:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.056
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.056 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, 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 F1CduzBgdgnM for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7988C12D7F8 for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:13:45 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1544692425; bh=iYfFNw9ovRPJWFeSnLgTjedKhTG2S+bXYeMqDbE8exU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=DHx5KhInln6byZPjU2c46fio1mQvHMrmB+AIBWKrVfqmzy25/YGh/eL+jNLNaAJRY prvm5QjdIfPujBkgQEV1b/WFdtNWj9jbAdsDgrSdnWDK1bfAJLsVruLer5v4yUx0Rg cV+AzOlQS4RisInRFZIQyqD+OFIzO+xDFcXbLl50=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2135/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How many datagrams can a client send prior to validating the path? (#2135)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c1222c97a7a1_76bd3fcb79ed45c015487f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 09:13:48 -0000

We limit amount of bytes now, not number of packets, no?

If we limit the client, it would need to be a rate limit, otherwise it would never be able to connect again later when network conditions improve.

I'm not sure it makes sense to have a MUST limit on client, as there can be many deployments types with different attack vectors. DNS might not be in the equation. However, obviously a client should not saturate a link on connection retries.

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