Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify client anti-amplification response (#3445)

Martin Thomson <> Mon, 10 February 2020 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C41120838 for <>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 11:20:35 -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_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 7ujT0am-yNlZ for <>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 11:20:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35840120832 for <>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 11:20:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37860A0A9F for <>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 11:20:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1581362432; bh=CsneUZaPgEkly56QvFQFDP6HiKEAUWhsZCsQS4ycT8g=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ofEVHpniHI/MU5U+Z74oN01BPRqQSnaEzYtT3Nw9wA/j4K9ndgzaUBSv6d55OamVh A2rhQA6KutkYzs64h5CnuDIBAf4jPtv6wRrBsJ5HWi41dEMQKWm+jMW20bQUhwUV1k FNzv5rCDDAoqpvt6exf30X7uBu+pmhORlLpHvML4=
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 11:20:32 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3445/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify client anti-amplification response (#3445)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e41ad0027320_44403fb909ecd964287755"; 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: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:20:35 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

Thanks. Struggling a little with that second sentence though. 

> @@ -1626,13 +1626,16 @@ payloads of at least 1200 bytes, adding padding to packets in the datagram as
 necessary. Sending padded datagrams ensures that the server is not overly
 constrained by the amplification restriction.
-Packet loss, in particular loss of a Handshake packet from the server, can cause
-a situation in which the server cannot send when the client has no data to send
-and the anti-amplification limit is reached. In order to avoid this causing a
-handshake deadlock, clients MUST send a packet upon a probe timeout, as
-described in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}. If the client has no data to retransmit and does
-not have Handshake keys, it MUST send an Initial packet in a UDP datagram of
-at least 1200 bytes.  If the client has Handshake keys, it SHOULD send a
+Loss of an Initial or Handshake packet from the server can cause a deadlock if
+the client does not send additional Initial or Handshake packets. The server can
+reach its anti-amplification limit, but the clients Initial data has been

This is missing an apostrophe on Clients. But more seriously, it looks like a sentence fragment. 

Maybe move the part about the client not sending up into this sentence. 

> The server can reach its anti-amplification limit, but the client has no reason to send more packets as all the data it has sent has been acknowledged.

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