IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't store or retransmit PATH_RESPONSE frames, avoid buffering (#2729)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Wed, 29 May 2019 06:43 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
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 7F047120052 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 23:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.02 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_28=1.404, 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: 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 1ew5VcIVhwI7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 23:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E007F12002E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2019 23:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 23:43:14 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1559112194; bh=CbJHTF88NJsW1BYUujBpwPBHjVJA1egJrk+oMVfy1zo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=y0nu2V5n1IaQD6ot/nWm7HWTH21xmuyGBT/DEtGSNFXYhG9OP0fqx931x+OGpcTQX cNCmA+aku8VocnOanfOy+YbRSWAIbdkDJKp1LqgrlV37qkd7HnmC7lxGzGPXAJzsQZ Q2yBvjgvsPrYA5dYXAi9j42obAuDPyJl7ICweAHQ=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK243EKBJWTXWBBNMVN27NOIFEVBNHHBVGEZF4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2729/review/243063577@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2729@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2729@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't store or retransmit PATH_RESPONSE frames, avoid buffering (#2729)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cee2a02b62fd_4baf3fdfe7ccd95c67079b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/PxAdRw2wMBEKicOLhJuSDvrhT0A>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 06:43:17 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1721,7 +1721,12 @@ it can associate the peer's response with the corresponding PATH_CHALLENGE.
 ## Path Validation Responses
 
 On receiving a PATH_CHALLENGE frame, an endpoint MUST respond immediately by
-echoing the data contained in the PATH_CHALLENGE frame in a PATH_RESPONSE frame.
+echoing the data contained in the PATH_CHALLENGE frame in a PATH_RESPONSE frame,
+unless it has PATH_RESPONSE frames buffered for the same destination connection
+ID and wishes to limit memory consumption.
+
+An endpoint MUST NOT store or retransmit a PATH_RESPONSE frame, as a new
+PATH_CHALLENGE frame will be sent if another PATH_RESPONSE frame is needed.
 

Why do we bother with ACK on challenge / response? And is that an attack vector, given what you just said?

-- 
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/pull/2729#discussion_r288413833

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email