Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discard inconsistent packets (#2431)

MikkelFJ <> Sat, 09 February 2019 07:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49CCF13117A for <>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 23:31:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_32=0.001, 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 5kiqRJHVqSBo for <>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 23:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 450B1130F2F for <>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 23:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 23:31:15 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1549697475; bh=LRwAIzTFHYYczMkMI2s1MnAqgEndZl1s1dyyBdmatZw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=cU7vT4EoDZUNr5lxyRStoUX+a3KD8UolOv5K4CKE6I197vne1a8Hunmz9HR+UtbSY AgbnkOS8SVGLVx2a62g6BEUaRFTypKMelBmsKiorFhUHsiJt1x/UxSunViTH4jzy7X 9uSRPkW1q/GKgF6oUwKIjZ9W1eTk7h0Fi4+WP/+s=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2431/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discard inconsistent packets (#2431)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c5e81c317acd_50733ff5636d45b41629ad"; 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: Sat, 09 Feb 2019 07:31:19 -0000

I'm wondering if there is a difference between failed decryption and version number.

If the versions differ, it doesn't really make sense to try to read a subsequent coalesced packet, unless you want to do trial and error since the concepts of coalescing and length fields are not defined in the general case. Even if you understand the version, two version can not (or should not?) exist in the same datagram.

If packet protection fails on the same version, it might just be a timing issue, or the (to me) dreaded path probe with prefixed knowingly invalid handshake.

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