Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Anti-amplification limits should count junk too (#3340)

Martin Thomson <> Tue, 04 February 2020 10:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4ED81200DB for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 02:56:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_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] 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 mP0K_yNLmvnZ for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 02:56:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27F06120074 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 02:56:15 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 02:56:14 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1580813774; bh=e9dBvAoV3F9cQG1P2IWBJLllX7VptDB6wDOiERJ2hZY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=UuDjwcthrKbLsHGmzhHnRXcOEpo7X1PZ9LdQoxBkQCHI2sX3BBWZdKMABR/zC6Nc9 ICx5p5awAIkMq7uZK8xHY3wH0/96b5316iEFEngNzkFNuPImi0qteQK0+Wn4eFcOEv UsqCpu4jZPuGq0lInsdIOrObky5tfnAejvgS0I8I=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3340/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Anti-amplification limits should count junk too (#3340)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e394dced53f_16553fb98bccd95c109471"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 10:56:17 -0000

This came up in the room as well.  The current proposal is:

If a packet is successfully processed, then the bytes of the datagram that it was contained in count toward the amplification limit.

There is some question about whether servers are permitted to include other datagrams that are sent on the same path.  This might be easier for some people to manage, but @marten-seemann is concerned that it could lead to inconsistencies and therefore bugs.  Personally, I find the idea that purely junk datagrams MAY be counted to be acceptable.

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