Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why does stateless reset have to be checked after MAC failure (#2152)

Martin Thomson <> Mon, 26 August 2019 11:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02CDB120119 for <>; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 04:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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 1VhnOdeKg8QQ for <>; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 04:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BA9C1200EC for <>; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 04:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 04:02:34 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1566817354; bh=iZ/+83UeWuVH7KAoB5HpuOueuHyBcsMCg2DPSiGAxLA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=vc6BPUffwITGgfQ+WrygHyTT1/FiE7ZYKhSra9NSnc3hfRmbdwJbcvvTz295Xco8q T99yy7AQHYIVZ/t7IEN4Npi5y688eg68CkyECfJNJhd1AYOFkODk7tZyHWeaeCn2Sr 9Hl2Op+u2s6OCu5a+iB8RqRw1GIduGZ5vEnALfQk=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2152/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why does stateless reset have to be checked after MAC failure (#2152)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d63bc4a7358f_3d583f801b0cd96c1057eb"; 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, 26 Aug 2019 11:02:37 -0000

@ekr, I know that this is now old, but I think that there's something here.  Not in the ordering, which I think is not important, but in the constant time piece.

I think that this implies that constant-time comparison with every viable stateless reset is something we should do on every packet.

There's been an assumption throughout that packet processing time for dropped packets isn't observable.  I think that's a bad assumption, frankly.  It's not like you can't put a packet with a known processing time after each probe.  

So I think that we've got to at least say that this is what happens.  But we've just raised the packet processing load considerably, so I doubt that this will be well received.

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