Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The server needs to acknowledge that a Retry happened (#1793)

Nick Banks <> Tue, 25 September 2018 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86526131011 for <>; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 07:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.455
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.456, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 1IdI568Dvo5s for <>; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 07:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 209581312DB for <>; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 07:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 07:54:23 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1537887263; bh=IhfH0egE84RHT78Qm+Gt6DN30Men6+4FKM5442eYY/g=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Kn2/DcwKKIxpGfarJEkMT5Gs9NV3eBrO5HZ8ms0pvaNFyannVMtgrzsqzVE2c2L9m k3NOsl/cky+rdkNWdRCvFbwZAXZIinLvoDpPV8wTpn3CBZ6LWiQZW+mZGhQgeBv/X3 rev/YN1qlfXxRmbZSW+CnZfgucKj3pz7ZBzMz9Pk=
From: Nick Banks <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1793/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The server needs to acknowledge that a Retry happened (#1793)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5baa4c1f30e46_23423fed072d45b85257b6"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
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, 25 Sep 2018 14:54:25 -0000

nibanks requested changes on this pull request.

Why is the design such that the client validates instead of the server? Can we not have such a design where the client updates its TP to include the original CID, and the server validates this? It is the one that knows if it expected a Retry or not. In the case of a completely independent DoS protection device, that the server wants to allow for, it doesn't necessarily know the original CID, and could then just generally allow any changes. I just think the server should be the one doing the validation, as it know the deployment state; not the client.

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