Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Anti-amplification limits should count junk too (#3340)

ianswett <> Wed, 15 January 2020 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE7F120090 for <>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 07:25:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 q-hjQYwpogfl for <>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 07:25:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5435112004F for <>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 07:25:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 07:25:17 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579101917; bh=0vjTehhXHnozpH/CqKUJb72OWdZOOVnQ3nYTlnHbhHo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Xs6hWtH/pgXuhF2kXnBRraJbGKRvxojkrheWUoUYmsvWR7m066SxUJE0Un26HuOu0 n2oqbsP6dI65jwO7R1GI5/GShfaF02z4EFuC/1rxVxdaUhFbgs8eLqZXh8xaxyuM9o 3ThXkD6uyLpuJcjvvEXe1oO9RjNdmJhElO1K8vXE=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3340/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Anti-amplification limits should count junk too (#3340)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e1f2edd9643b_3c0b3fe0b54cd968120268"; 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
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: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 15:25:25 -0000

I have no objection to requiring both CID and path to match, though I'll note that if the server changes the CID in an Initial packet, but the client doesn't receive enough data to generate handshake keys, it'll need to match against both CIDs.

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