Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Forgery limits on packet protection (#3619)

Martin Thomson <> Fri, 08 May 2020 07:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99CC3A0858 for <>; Fri, 8 May 2020 00:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.006
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.006 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_16=1.092, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jLBjwy2ii_XP for <>; Fri, 8 May 2020 00:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D24A03A0853 for <>; Fri, 8 May 2020 00:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19746A1EB8 for <>; Fri, 8 May 2020 00:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1588922760; bh=CYUQA+n7KpUaSX3CDJQhrdXeH1F4P8SSfuiAfkR+x+M=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=N7VqTYaUDzY0o7E7zF66PoQmdmQoYVG/ycksoE1oLR3m7XSCKenW5uyAVRqOfiisY wWGI3WLQ78+mnlHxWA/mwi8Lz+sDfAUXM5jt9mqVyGtynPn1QNxFgQhyT7jSD+bGQE yKMw8tIRzHfKotlzOFRIgUemAUjZ/4IwRw4ISInc=
Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:26:00 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3619/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Forgery limits on packet protection (#3619)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5eb50988b2007_74be3feb9cccd964349064"; 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: Fri, 08 May 2020 07:26:05 -0000

Good point about the AD.  The AD - at least for QUIC - is always sent, so that fits in the same space.  We don't necessarily need to double count the tiny number of blocks, but as you say, counting that only once yields a negligible difference.  If we had a large AD that wasn't also transmitted, that would be different.

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