Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Move stateless reset token to the end (#842)

[ekr <[e-mail]>]

ekr approved this pull request.

This seems generally fine. comments below

>  A server copies the connection ID field from the packet that triggers the
 stateless reset.  A server omits the connection ID if explicitly configured to
 do so, or if the client packet did not include a connection ID.
 
+The Packet Number field is set to a randomized value.  This packet SHOULD use

Nit: I would say "The server SHOULD use..."

>  A server copies the connection ID field from the packet that triggers the
 stateless reset.  A server omits the connection ID if explicitly configured to
 do so, or if the client packet did not include a connection ID.
 
+The Packet Number field is set to a randomized value.  This packet SHOULD use
+the short header form with the shortest possible packet number encoding.  This

I think I would phrase this as "the packet type should be X, which represents the shortest packet encoding", because you aren't allowed to use long format under any conditions.

> @@ -1595,11 +1600,11 @@ CONNECTION_CLOSE or APPLICATION_CLOSE frame if it has sufficient state to do so.
 #### Detecting a Stateless Reset
 
 A client detects a potential stateless reset when a packet with a short header
-cannot be decrypted.  The client then performs a constant-time comparison of the
-16 octets that follow the Connection ID with the Stateless Reset Token provided
-by the server in its transport parameters.  If this comparison is successful,
-the connection MUST be terminated immediately.  Otherwise, the packet can be
-discarded.
+either cannot be decrypted or is marked as a potential duplicate.  The client
+then performs a constant-time comparison of the last 16 octets of the packet
+with the Stateless Reset Token provided by the server in its transport
+parameters.  If this comparison is successful, the connection MUST be terminated

Can you say what "terminated" means? Is it the same as having received CONNECTION_CLOSE?

-- 
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/842#pullrequestreview-67883034