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

Marten Seemann <> Wed, 02 September 2020 02:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3313A0A94 for <>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 19:48:08 -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 8jLDf3CiHH08 for <>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 19:48:06 -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 D597B3A0A93 for <>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 19:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D0D5C08B8 for <>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 19:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1599014886; bh=QZpQid1sD2OY4yweFtFatLgsOQH55X/y5em09H3pf/w=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=dqxLjMje/c0SdniLq+7R2xhwKN1VhnY61nee29b8ubMZNCLKH5TJLnkoBPvMfCdfm epkHhexPeIfdw8eteeEDnN4Altnbmg6YBL3h8+DB9z0B4hekJtluNGSMmt9FDPpdn4 aKHR5NDjAN7l1PMOhyhsdRAElV6WmYmic1xyc0Fo=
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 19:48:06 -0700
From: Marten Seemann <>
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 post-Retry packet numbering (#3989)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f4f07e6126c8_3c3019642200d0"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 02:48:08 -0000

As pointed out by @ekr on the mailing list, #3990 adds little value to the spec.
Every MUST can be enforced by aborting the connection. I'm not convinced that adding a "The peer MAY abort the connection if *this* MUST is violated" after every MUST increases the clarity of the spec.

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