Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Endpoints MAY (not SHOULD) ignore IPv4 ICMP PTB messages (#2109)

Igor Lubashev <> Wed, 12 December 2018 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A6771311F4 for <>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:35:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, 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] 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 JZrFo9WPUK-K for <>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:35:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A1A81311F2 for <>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:35:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:35:53 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1544639753; bh=WM2i0ZGrsZnNvYE8XjE5ecmOY47xIgo2U9T9NBsFrOQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=DnRflI2mMgA9UseCSqSBlrBgM0eqVkxxqgN8WlRshgCrKqiNWSvtK0dB7wHMP+hXh 4u8PUO1Ujcgdn3wPFfBDVp1H2rJKkCUNSyDBPTNJjG3Kq82jxMl8Q7KgCtoozpNCgc PjLqOMgvD6AeLpQcBOZa1AIqw377IKUDDLFVd2LI=
From: Igor Lubashev <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2109/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Endpoints MAY (not SHOULD) ignore IPv4 ICMP PTB messages (#2109)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c11550933ba2_74643fd6242d45bc143748"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 18:35:56 -0000

DPLPMTUD is not a requirement for all QUIC implementations.  The SHOULD in question is written as a requirement for all.

Looking at DPLPMTUD, however, I am realizing that it is possible that the question is moot.  DPLPMTUD draft (#3.4) considers doing anything at all (like simply matching to an existing connection using IP addresses) sufficient for validation (it says that doing more for validation is a SHOULD, implying that just matching IPs is still acceptable).  Since doing anything less is impractical when processing PTB messages, any implementation that uses PTB messages is implicitly validating them.  If so, I'd be happy with some text making it explicit that just matching on IPs and, maybe, UDP ports is sufficient to consider PTB validated.

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