Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discarding connection state at server on unvalidated client (#2656)

Martin Thomson <> Mon, 29 April 2019 05:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490E11200B7 for <>; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 22:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 JnXHfjGcW53i for <>; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 22:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D7D7120074 for <>; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 22:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 22:55:06 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1556517306; bh=DvEJxAkHDHWf7S7G2bae6drxhKb5bk3/tbP7gAQR3Xg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=U8d+3vr9M58o64SZZMbOBH1q+EPB88oZZ1RhwjlYN1elWc6mLNKcQy/oCX3YfvDrq YAv9DZkzI+vipisiAdqMSmhCZkJMopIO5qvqpVqKB8pKTpEnBwfQWigndcp6Bl7Tcx lzkss3kGwCQoyFqXpduXZVVxqioue4UIdwsgBNEM=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2656/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discarding connection state at server on unvalidated client (#2656)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cc691ba1c1ce_79e43fb2e92cd964465477"; 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
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: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:55:10 -0000

Yes, idle timeout on a periodic sweep is likely better than assuming that a timer is in play.  As @marten-seemann says, anything we say here is in optimization territory.  It is likely a very useful optimization, but we don't need to say too much in the spec unless there is an interop or security hazard.  Offhand, I can't see anything other than a resource exhaustion problem, but that's clearly something that the periodic sweep should address.

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