Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Simplify the client's PTO code by allowing the server to send a PING (#3161)

Christian Huitema <> Tue, 29 October 2019 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E50DC120289 for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 14:12:02 -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 1EYw0oXQAZjn for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 14:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEB5712006D for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 14:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83176A1111 for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 14:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572383520; bh=jFmFxiwCdeq/6O1QPRvMs/Kxr2Y3aTdffB9xADz+vBU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=SXTJnRpGO6fBA6Ma7B9KtsP3Br7pKkqgtAaaguJI2ckO/LiwjBFIBPf0mQO5qCB+G WLi02/OpLvfBXHMwaKGcvrF9j12jOziBd3u77CgiPS5Jo86Pm7kc7AbY4igZF80lzY B1aHYFk5/R4BNNdKVvkiRAgZgi1kxAKpzJO+MuWk=
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 14:12:00 -0700
From: Christian Huitema <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3161/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Simplify the client's PTO code by allowing the server to send a PING (#3161)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db8ab20c6799_77db3f95beecd96469784"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: huitema
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: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 21:12:03 -0000

@ianswett: Fair. Due to the risk of amplification attacks, the server is probably not willing to retransmit Initial packets on timer. In that case, the current spec is a bit too lose. It should say that "If the sender is not willing to retransmit Initial packets due to protection against amplification attacks, it MUST NOT acknowledge the client's initial packet." So basically, either the server verifies the client's address with the Retry/Token mechanism, or it MUST NOT acknowledge client initial packets before continuity can be verified by obtaining an ACK from the client.

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