IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The QUIC-TLS draft should define anti-forgery limits for packet lengths up to 2^16 (#3701)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Thu, 24 September 2020 23:02 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 CA05B3A0A03 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.695, 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_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 stiWm8Ze9zz8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:02:09 -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 8C4213A0A2C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-bb778fb.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-bb778fb.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.102.56]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 228017A0082 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1600988529; bh=HKPf0XoPG97nfNTVs5m6NOBNeUAQe2mCtzrP85iMnRc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=IeqxT550rGTjcdOuqqMx/FWl0nP8weFy+CovD4bKHrx704Jc2VjP2yPNnPJnPmWbF dpeIPhdLmxNCOScgPk17ZDzHbr3mL9Cfof8lEYodgDv5Y2D+pK/M3ctly7r/Wa5f// T4oMzCMe7k7GAsOE0sS1/4auDDO0b6NiRqNvTx5c=
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:02:08 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2VDWFZYCSN5Z7XCZV5PEDHBEVBNHHCKRFAVA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3701/698631070@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3701@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3701@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The QUIC-TLS draft should define anti-forgery limits for packet lengths up to 2^16 (#3701)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f6d2570d0edd_267019f08119bb"; 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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/WHm0DQ4vMQYaneYSt9XegiXXvOw>
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: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 23:02:11 -0000

So I talked this over with @chris-wood and we both agree that this is not unsafe enough to block publication based on:

> Where packets might be larger than 2^14 bytes in length, smaller limits might be needed.

Getting this right is hard enough that I'm concerned that we'll make another mistake.  The number of mistakes we made already is enough that I don't want to put this in a spec without multiple rounds of checking.

@MikeBishop points out that a change in targets also changes some MUST-level requirements and so wouldn't be a purely editorial change, so I'm going to remove the "editorial" tag and suggest that we just not take this.

-- 
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/3701#issuecomment-698631070

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email