Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why does stateless reset have to be checked after MAC failure (#2152)

Martin Thomson <> Wed, 09 October 2019 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0DD12004C for <>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 VaEaeEcOc_Wy for <>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CDFC120020 for <>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 16:54:54 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1570665294; bh=JQZHVkWGkuc73er1z7dbAvzo4gDBf0vkeOkLaPKOwGg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=SjD/714YLgT7X0FnoEZIz2sZJcazcJ97OhiUxcP6TEuba6iG0iY9x3GhSvmKXKugp iox0Oym+85vtSooRFq/WZyQNef7Sg4M4UggVP8KaOe5vOtgbU1dc0G+NEy1RUba3n3 KyBq9MQA7n7oJEUJyxeY29usuYwyMJKAwAeKifuI=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2152/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why does stateless reset have to be checked after MAC failure (#2152)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d9e734e62b37_57d03f88978cd96c6872f"; 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, 09 Oct 2019 23:54:57 -0000

Oh, I completely missed the question about ordering in there.  Reading comprehension fail on my part.  I've tweaked the proposed fix to account for this.  Specifically:

> This comparison can be performed for every inbound datagram.  Endpoints MAY skip this check if packets from a datagram are successfully processed.  However, the comparison MUST be performed when the first packet in an incoming datagram either cannot be associated with a connection, cannot be decrypted, or is identified as a duplicate.

Note that I've switched this to datagram rather than packet, so match the sending and to allow for variations in how packets are assembled into datagrams.

I think that fixes it, but I'll wait for input on the new changes before reattaching `proposal-ready`.

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