IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] WGLC review nits for Recovery (#3877)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Tue, 21 July 2020 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753843A08C6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 07:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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_24=1.618, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6lr-GzkZMyZl for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 07:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-26.smtp.github.com (out-26.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 183F13A08C1 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 07:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-f1f7af9.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f1f7af9.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.111.13]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53215281004 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 07:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1595340048; bh=neSNFWeat5u9Tb10dpGn/7mN8Od1rwbsM6N2kgVXcf4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=qRiNVid1W8LA1Tq7wYdf3YaV9NVbhfPEopcDo+U9Eny0c7v83grziyo5VqH7fMSxR uTro/snoeFO0P+Gpe34RCgp/MVHESfzFwmUtmiqvmnfgW/WMQeYPY8CJQLUBuKGO0J gQXBZoFYFS+Lo2G5AfpLyWUN4LqYnHqSw6i1Iwxg=
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 07:00:48 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK732M2WLYES4IPK25V5ELLBBEVBNHHCN5FSHA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3877/review/452483862@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3877@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3877@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] WGLC review nits for Recovery (#3877)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f16f5104357a_69db3ffa994cd960220670"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/bHU_UBer0Hos5RJUK0sN51tZZGg>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:00:50 -0000

@MikeBishop commented on this pull request.



> @@ -587,7 +587,7 @@ received from the client, because packets sent on PTO count against the
 anti-amplification limit. Note that the server could fail to validate the
 client's address even if 0-RTT is accepted.
 
-Since the server could be blocked until more packets are received from the
+Since the server could be blocked until more bytes are received from the

The trouble with that is, they don't have to be validly formed packets, do they?  Just attributable to a single connection, which might well be by address.

>  For the purposes of avoiding amplification prior to address validation, servers MUST count all of the payload bytes received in datagrams that are uniquely attributed to a single connection. This includes datagrams that contain packets that are successfully processed and datagrams that contain packets that are all discarded.

Maybe meet in the middle on "datagrams"?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3877#discussion_r458117158

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status