IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document why one might want to pad ACKS (#4252)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Tue, 20 October 2020 04:02 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 ADA633A0985 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ScN4Jn4dCGkQ for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 529BA3A098B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-f628540.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.101.15]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 75049560E58 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1603166529; bh=cGFLj7oexqMigpdKPEdgDICiChNYlQVisWc5K+fuGr4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=siexMEISvC7SlnE/NXQfG8PvLoO6XPeQy4lZM1lCi6TjV2TA9t9W8hi/3D2McpoeR gxSYipJ/zP5/MV0aBMBEVZ/tgfc9MBUWU0IVeXzp1T6fRhCsRkDzDsULU2Ovw/Etdf xuMhbDBO9MvxEaq2ix1YYvcvChck3HC4oE4qp8fA=
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:02:09 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6BJOS3YKID2P5BNEN5TJBEDEVBNHHCWNWPOM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4252/review/512314787@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4252@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4252@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document why one might want to pad ACKS (#4252)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f8e614171f25_4f19b41098af"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/iDsfKX4lTxpqiNOydZI3Qx3oqRk>
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: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 04:02:12 -0000

@kazuho commented on this pull request.

I am concerned that the note is a bit too specific regarding behaviors around timeout. We do assume endpoints to have timeouts other than idle timeouts.

@janaiyengar 
> I'd rather add one about the fact that smaller-than-1200-byte non-ack-eliciting packets can cause unpredicted side-effects.

I'm not sure if giving such advice makes sense. As pointed out in #4253, size of datagram is not authenticated, and therefore endpoints should be prepared against MOTS attackers injecting spoofed datagrams that do not meet the padding requirement.

It might be true that we can have exceptions for Initial packets, but I do not think having such exception is worthwhile when we cannot have such an exception for connection migration.



-- 
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/pull/4252#pullrequestreview-512314787

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email