Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding outside QUIC packet (#3333)

Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com> Mon, 20 January 2020 07:18 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 A04FD1200B3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:18:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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: 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 34uMY06Xm2va for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:17:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18855120043 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:17:57 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:17:56 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1579504676; bh=ir2voPbaOzlu82Bun3HdvmJZbt10EUDe0x0HTCxuqK8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=oOh+znTeYm4T3FJcYoTDayimRnq4ehTyp9zKbI5ymBEGODB/jmtOjsLwYPWPajEQe UUOwMpYHLIsC0TpK0CZAnZJg9A9BVUWMkiYpIo/hNSANsGy6LPF68fVuXrI0+cfkt9 lFmpzFQPzZ47Uk3wPcNY9j4pRJeRxlBfMQ5owaz8=
From: Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4TJBZ5AUULP4P5XNN4GKDKJEVBNHHCBMO65M@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3333/576138925@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3333@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3333@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding outside QUIC packet (#3333)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e2554244b56a_52e33fbf91ccd96418832c"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: huitema
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/iLDJKFSrwF51z-FYG-Pa0gQ8x50>
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, 20 Jan 2020 07:18:03 -0000

I think it is much simpler to say that:

1) For the purpose of verifying that an Initial packet is larger than the required minimum, all bytes count.
2) For all other purposes, including congestion control and amplification control, only valid packets count.

Then it becomes a choice of implementations. Padding with padding frames is not hard, many implementations do it. Implementations that want to save a few lines of code or a few CPU cycles could pad their initial packets otherwise, but they will bear the impact on performance.

Also, consider the coalescing requirement about DCID: "Senders MUST NOT coalesce QUIC packets for different connections into a single UDP datagram. Receivers SHOULD ignore any subsequent packets with a different Destination Connection ID than the first packet in the datagram." That's consistent with "ignore the junk for all purposes except maybe verifying packet size".

-- 
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/3333#issuecomment-576138925