Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Server should not accept 1-RTT traffic before handshake completion (#3159)

Antoine Delignat-Lavaud <> Mon, 28 October 2019 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3AA4120803 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.382 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UNTkdoF518Lz for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B41EA120128 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=KNdb2FD0KqZZUm2JwpbU2AEOgXg=; b=lB8aFEmYwEIxa9VC tZS+DDSkfL8fo3/kghFqgLPHKrXYVN6eRM6ImzsU0D2rdSvbdeDx39osnIVZduQp 9mE1xk5YM5zvCY96AAhxP9awtHvnKbvqcfslmH4YXr1STsT0b3haqOqPngMq9aBN mNoxdJt2k2mvjSPGMd3ntl+1mB0=
Received: by with SMTP id filter1310p1mdw1-18167-5DB6F970-3A 2019-10-28 14:21:36.740736779 +0000 UTC m=+10987.309571687
Received: from (unknown []) by (SG) with ESMTP id 8SBEp8gaRsyHdog0SCW_pw for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 14:21:36.758 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C8868C0435 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 14:21:36 +0000
From: Antoine Delignat-Lavaud <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3159/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Server should not accept 1-RTT traffic before handshake completion (#3159)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db6f9709a94c_61323f93404cd96c409021"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ad-l
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak0Lz0jbWlTBN51gLk7PlNXNEtseLt2bmdcgen Tsd3kEbl/uwV/xZmht+rXmmY2JvFRvo0JsR+UzVbsw0XAO32coqlYPjOP1MMl/DnLSXGVlCKlB+9az WDJ59k78yDyQAaQJ/NU5ChZYJ9Cdy04csPSrIqBn9SFsZ9hKunX9g3OafAb+ldQ2B8jrzZlfNdDfQg Y=
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: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 14:21:42 -0000

Yes, I agree that this spec is correct in that respect. However, it is clear that several implementations are not implementing this restriction correctly, which is understandable given that it requires server to actively delay processing buffered packets (i.e. use memory resources). I think it is much better to enforce the correct behavior by requiring that the finished is repeated in every datagram until the handshake is confirmed by the server, because the server is guaranteed that it does not need a logic for received data that cannot be passed to the application. 

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