IETF Logo Mail Archive

[quicwg/base-drafts] Ambiguity in section 5.2.2 of RFC 9000 (#4928)

Suchith J N <notifications@github.com> Mon, 26 July 2021 11:06 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 D4CFC3A0B65 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 04:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.005
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.005 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.452, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 BDdH_vJX_Q9x for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 04:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D3883A0B63 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 04:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-e68d0b8.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.200.43]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9A0A65213AF for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 04:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1627297569; bh=PjnWm2oGHiRRLlIghmKUPZq2qb7bqorPvhqP7pgHTPw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=J3iyhQfwIa1chhSdg8vzSEugJrG/VZcO+i+NuCboUUowuJxFaR03dKd0sSmcinYd1 3G3CFOAuloU2nYmIgSZ+LQfojzC4JLYhYUhPYtWIiGVhM0m+OlCpYjVRmQHFr+bjON 7889V9z6aN5R1J4a/Yi00/lobWWtr/dzqSH0eENw=
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 04:06:09 -0700
From: Suchith J N <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7T363HZN645ITWXKN7BJ4CDEVBNHHDRSSOLE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4928@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ambiguity in section 5.2.2 of RFC 9000 (#4928)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_60fe972197bbe_51c72416305e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: su225
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/e8h1bWCTnD-BiJ3hOYya9gPUu28>
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: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 11:06:15 -0000

In section ["Server Packet Handling"](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9000#section-5.2.2)
>    If a server receives a packet that indicates an unsupported version
   and if the packet is **large enough** to initiate a new connection for
   any supported version, the server SHOULD send a Version Negotiation
   packet as described in Section 6.1.  A server MAY limit the number of
   packets to which it responds with a Version Negotiation packet.
   **Servers MUST drop smaller packets** that specify unsupported versions.

What is the threshold for "large enough" and "smaller" packets? Dropping "smaller" packets seem to be a requirement, but how small is "smaller"? If that is implementation dependent, then it should have been mentioned as such.

-- 
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/issues/4928

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email