IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Path Challenge Padding and Amplification Protection (#4257)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Thu, 10 December 2020 00:37 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 4E8093A08DA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:37:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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_20=1.546, 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 EQW_A9ZNUvNi for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:37:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16F8F3A03F5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:37:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-0fc953f.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.109.25]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 06FF1E0A6E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:37:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1607560646; bh=f3MtQkLLt2KpJ+00ID8xaBrCnsH3HR7KNdOLuRTgPhQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=r7Sq9pA+vtGCy5Wi/8/U3khmpglT9OsctbNZTBFa7AwYF6gG2YpFWOg30RO5OJDz4 eHZ8kK0HfVVXV9o9syZT2L/qXtpZtMZXolQoFc3Dwaxd8sIg10fMKgS7ak8+xu/e21 WFzn7E1mVtAp9BR5y0xetAsNLV6v/qwm06VAwfU8=
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 16:37:26 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2N2SO2HUFS2BG5QDN53VHMLEVBNHHCWUAGFQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4257/742154441@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4257@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4257@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Path Challenge Padding and Amplification Protection (#4257)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5fd16dc63973_84f19b45927a9"; 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/iaAMPBSPDWuG6E_VzbiamacFiB8>
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: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:37:28 -0000

> Given that you can't validate the "unless" criteria for the peer, it seems like the client isn't able to enforce this MUST.

I'm not sure if I follow. IIUC, we do have MUSTs that are not enforceable by the peer.

IMO "MUST unless" is better than "SHOULD unless", because it is clear that the sender is required to behave as specified whenever the exception is _not_ being met. SHOULD sounds like there are other cases when a sender can send a smaller sized datagrams.

-- 
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/4257#issuecomment-742154441

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email