Return-Path: X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53AF3A0BB6 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:27:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.483 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ea03uU2ANdbV for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out-25.smtp.github.com (out-25.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 393083A0BAA for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from github-lowworker-28f8021.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-28f8021.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.98]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFB26280ABC for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:27:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1590535620; bh=+ZZCDusFojMArVoExQVn8bYRl649hygOk/BDG3/DhOQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=EoDYipPefRjmckHVoP+HNwosocBRBA+3vynm0y75BhyLmB8z05Uz9quTAOInfW9Wv SO0o+vNWtjok58vl19+Rh6hIVpJRke4oXDvsenZjYXlCpaqlCW+9wjzg1s/V6MzEWD QCo5wSeZxqglWiXz7lsOvW4aqpltTbwP4OTHP15Y= Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 16:27:00 -0700 From: Martin Thomson Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts To: quicwg/base-drafts Cc: Subscribed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How to reject a connection attempt (#3690) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ecda5c4bf6ba_80a3f858bacd960775c9"; 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 X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org Archived-At: X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org 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, 26 May 2020 23:27:05 -0000 ----==_mimepart_5ecda5c4bf6ba_80a3f858bacd960775c9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think that @kazuho is entirely right here. The renaming of the error code is useful as it removes the *implication* of a semantic that would be destructive. That implication is that the code is like a 503, which comes with the *further* implication that holding back for some time is desirable (due to the common use of Retry-After with 503). QUIC has no Retry-After, so any implied time delay is bogus. As mentioned, that browsers might sit and wait is a policy decision that makes sense in the current state of the world. I'm going to merge the PR. But I get the sense that this is not directly addressing the issue. For the issue itself, I think that the only real resolution is: that's tough, but too bad. As numerous people have said, this phase of connection establishment is ripe for DoS and we have chosen to accept that risk in QUIC version 1. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3690#issuecomment-634332765 ----==_mimepart_5ecda5c4bf6ba_80a3f858bacd960775c9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I think that @kazuho is entirely right here. The renaming of the error code is useful as it removes the implication of a semantic that would be destructive. That implication is that the code is like a 503, which comes with the further implication that holding back for some time is desirable (due to the common use of Retry-After with 503). QUIC has no Retry-After, so any implied time delay is bogus.

As mentioned, that browsers might sit and wait is a policy decision that makes sense in the current state of the world.

I'm going to merge the PR. But I get the sense that this is not directly addressing the issue. For the issue itself, I think that the only real resolution is: that's tough, but too bad. As numerous people have said, this phase of connection establishment is ripe for DoS and we have chosen to accept that risk in QUIC version 1.

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

----==_mimepart_5ecda5c4bf6ba_80a3f858bacd960775c9--