Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Let server abort on post-Retry packet number reset (#3990)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Mon, 10 August 2020 22:57 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 B55DF3A0DD0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.552 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_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 PdXB22zrg_F9 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-16.smtp.github.com (out-16.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B5273A0DCF for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-ca5950c.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-ca5950c.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.57]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E817A006F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1597100263; bh=tdEE9ybl2ZNdAnc0Bboh7lmWl7MROu9BKL/MS8kehAc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=r9CojMy2/5CueOOCmryXMqu7A/Jo9XmGDIC2yv9Eo3LP3s5tc9fSD2MuOVJ6omw0G 8J0sNtPL51wQSCngVYGVFAhWssBrCC3hh2w+G39qxucvXrSAVzgiVgxLxKld0ReUTp M26qtaxN0IHGKa7TCLZXOja0lvq8IMUvgerWaaME=
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:57:42 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZN4Z43YXXBJZVNFEV5HWY6NEVBNHHCQTEK7Y@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3990/review/464641969@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3990@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3990@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Let server abort on post-Retry packet number reset (#3990)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f31d0e6b1461_450916f8951b6"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/V7OZc-nklS6_Q0yGMiTLRioviRg>
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: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 22:57:45 -0000

@ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -4807,6 +4807,8 @@ responding to a Retry packet. However, the data sent in these packets could be
 different than what was sent earlier. Sending these new packets with the same
 packet number is likely to compromise the packet protection for those packets
 because the same key and nonce could be used to protect different content.
+A server MAY abort the connection if it detects that the client reset the

If we're making a normative change, I'd argue for SHOULD

-- 
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/3990#pullrequestreview-464641969