Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] If you want a Stateless Reset you need to send a much larger packet than before (#2770)

MikkelFJ <> Fri, 07 June 2019 05:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81F812008A for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 22:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.391
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 Hrf8iIaOjMA6 for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 22:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB83512000F for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 22:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:11:42 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1559884302; bh=EPQRFIowLVgk/cwmpSGCWe8wAdmjYaist66Nu9wzv+I=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=MXJyozE/tYABgltnqpv7NTEOk7eBO3SfBdPiJKGGb6ZAgkwyHafonMoeLvthg5OHY IzsRvYfCvq29uKB/D3ZCtqdYSsfy2gRC0e40NyvgQ96/2xYifUUsikEYbReNAnrQAi QQQMQWeieTg2fyrIBgRtu6w0nxOzk8A+ZEpdNUOg=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2770/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] If you want a Stateless Reset you need to send a much larger packet than before (#2770)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cf9f20e565b5_648d3fb11dacd95c2659ea"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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, 07 Jun 2019 05:11:46 -0000

I can see the need for issuing a SRT ASAP in order for fast client side connection recovery. This is one reason there has been strong pushback against probabilistic resets as I have proposed before. Another reason is probably esthetical and because it wasn't that important when SRT's could be made small enough.

However, when you are facing a guessing game on how large to make packets and arbitrarily making payload larger than need be, and possible only some of the payload to eventually ensure a high chance of reset, I think this is really doing probabilistic resets the wrong way around.

I suggest that as long as you can send a SRT that is smaller than inbound you should. If you cannot do that are only permitted to send a SRT with a probability no larger than size(inbound)/size(SRT).

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