Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Change max_packet_size to max_datagram_size (#3471)

Martin Thomson <> Fri, 21 February 2020 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1600812013D for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:22:42 -0800 (PST)
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 NAOeR1p2qrqa for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:22:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35A78120033 for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:22:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5171C05DD for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:22:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1582258959; bh=z/VDYm4B5Q1RSD9JPH25UZbHnV2epx7qrgYiwdf1rWQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Iu/xHENRP3B+s2q2dw4oRRWYi1HLoKOw0Xd8WGfGE0ofmoH1MS1j0KdWuWq46apHc bSyA13TGniIHIojEWbDFqPaAKLryjI6+OAnZmqTDlTgA04APnkgUejWDDLgMAa6s1U BgwzDTLWS+2aBnUnjqP2FeX1x14Em4RcYhOv4ypU=
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:22:39 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3471/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Change max_packet_size to max_datagram_size (#3471)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e4f5b0f4da86_321f3ff085ccd96c1959c3"; 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: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:22:42 -0000

This was never intended to be a limit on datagram size.  That is, it was intended to be a limit on the length of ciphertext passed to the AEAD.

That said, this is probably the right approach.  The size of the buffers you need to catch a UDP packet are probably more relevant than the size of the AEAD inputs.

I do note, however, that the construction of the Retry packet is such that the inputs to the AEAD might be greater in length than the packet itself.  And Retry has to be sent without even looking at the client's limits.  Maybe we need to say that Retry needs to be no more than 1179 bytes in length (to allow for the largest possible connection ID to be added).  That shouldn't be a problem in practice, as there is strong motivation for the Retry token to be much shorter than that - to the point that an 1179-byte Retry probably will have a token that doesn't allow for any data in an Initial packet - but we should be clearer about our limits.

Please don't claim that this is an editorial change.  It is not.

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