Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] If you want a Stateless Reset you need to send a much larger packet than before (#2770)

Martin Thomson <> Tue, 11 June 2019 00:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2755C1200FF for <>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.806
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.415, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 FOOcQ5TAM32P for <>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2D17120048 for <>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:15:35 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1560212135; bh=om/hyL+hm/ChLXDuzj1RnU04L4RCvJqtZfecFQKfzvw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=f1wZPfPINxFO11XJjtuMq/bvufA7lijcP7xZ8JpsPGlBOr+4ingSYdb15T/Rd73fJ txR1wb0LhLiESe3aYzisJ7OZ4RxnB1Sc+MK7VQPyydijiohhiZCgX2OeYyD/BU5xhe EP4sYHGZfI67fzyezI4J+YN1OtJkEzy4cOgVp+50=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2770/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] If you want a Stateless Reset you need to send a much larger packet than before (#2770)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cfef2a77582b_ba83fd03decd9642186eb"; 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: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:15:38 -0000

@kazuho add one to your calculation.

That would cause peers to generate packets that can be responded to with a stateless reset, but it wouldn't help the peer generating the stateless reset if it received a bogus packet.  It would be ignorant of a critical value.  That's not strictly a problem, and it might be that this is better than any alternative, but I do wonder about what sort of perverse incentives we're creating (with or without the clever hack).

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