Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reserved versions will "probably" never represent a real protocol? (#2430)

Mike Bishop <> Thu, 07 February 2019 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A42130E62 for <>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:15:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.001 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 l3pUIJhAO6oT for <>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:15:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5ACD130E79 for <>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:15:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=RVkah0rLdTooLYA+X8Y3RKjNkfU=; b=wjSW11ayqLBO19TE GHHWq4zT4IR1ij6DmdzlbctbbNgij6QI9DzezBp8r+vtoLBwvl+GFXQZwRxU1dEZ ssxs8sh9IN1q3Wb+6ohjArtayN7VfCiKhtSTnBHTBYS+UE0LdJW5pCh6T0i6RzNd jneS+lEBvwZrnBHVkPTadoPvDLo=
Received: by with SMTP id filter1587p1mdw1-21659-5C5CBBFE-37 2019-02-07 23:15:10.725183884 +0000 UTC m=+180959.098354152
Received: from (unknown []) by (SG) with ESMTP id PiCXgS-iTBqDoIl9PSjxPg for <>; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 23:15:10.689 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5BF880677 for <>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:15:10 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 23:15:10 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2430/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reserved versions will "probably" never represent a real protocol? (#2430)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c5cbbfea17d8_26d63f9176ed45bc3175ef"; 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-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak1+dshZmOT0SbJ6OUmzhNgeNlf53Or4MxW/AS T1ifvnCuYOE1N9K/bJ5Odbh072QiK3smvuBlw7CieWfCXupkXcXHt9yShYSKDa8PP1Y98emZW3feE6 PFNEillBZb3SpKniPLmH0Peu3f6SI35l3SRFdP7cLqfPbdjDnewpsG5Z3+5eSgFT3zfS4th6hQxMS1 w=
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: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 23:15:15 -0000

We fear that someone might ossify if they discover that these are *definitely* not real protocol versions.  On the other hand, the thing that breaks is use of these as real protocol versions, which I don't believe we're trying to achieve.  If the middlebox is generating *accurate* VN packets, that seems entirely reasonable (and indistinguishable from actual VN packets).  If they're generating inaccurate VN packets, then our anti-downgrade protections that we've decided to implement RSN will break.

On the other hand, if these ever are real protocol versions, then a junk grease packet using the reserved version will fail to parse as a valid Initial and will just fail rather than eliciting a VN response.

This seems like an impossible battle to win, and a lot of subtlety to expect of middlebox vendors.  Write what we mean and move on.

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