Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow server to enforce port-Retry packet numbering (#3989)

Martin Thomson <> Tue, 11 August 2020 00:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A5643A0E69 for <>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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_H2=-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 azfXSqXDLzFe for <>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6E403A0E67 for <>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F72E00A0 for <>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1597106896; bh=XBGNzmJ9eKNIAenhJgCJ/joQJLgS/M+Z5eKPGkcvYF8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=SQf8iWXvtKdLLIX+2JUdodx03bqc8O3xU7ZyzAhUY2PX/PQBnR40H1Zc6xKjBTIwr vuV8HH8Ih4jWh2w5pzByd0Pysbdq2YPX5W6uqP3lnJ4JGpX43j/r9ZBy0slYxQv735 aZ9QgKNtARrvzrUVAsm+HXV9NGSm5n20pauGDMlE=
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:48:16 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3989/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow server to enforce port-Retry packet numbering (#3989)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f31ead019b5d_40ec16f88866fc"; 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: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 00:48:18 -0000

I think that this might as well run through the design process.  It's borderline, because this is about enforcement of an existing MUST, which you might argue comes with an implicit MAY enforce, but we do need to agree on the requirement level.

Note that this isn't completely trivial to implement.  If a servers responds to packet 1 with Retry, it has to ignore packet 0 if it arrives with no token (or a NEW_TOKEN token).  That's already a requirement, but a poor implementation of this requirement will fail, likely with low enough probability that the error won't be detected, especially when it is hidden by Alt-Svc.

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