Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding requirement seems to be incorrect. (#3053)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Mon, 23 September 2019 02:39 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 94CF61200EF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 19:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 h4-fmdnrQF-J for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 19:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
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 AA7C1120041 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 19:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 19:39:39 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1569206379; bh=x2SOnynJvR4adsX9snqsQABrDOODzCcvAOpT9y/wwtk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Ie+8pGj/sYS+88C3Cwpc8na7zCBg5mg9DyJv44IB3fbDtWba8NJ6H/gpM+QPtgtzT ePZZ7DGey6UMYgfW3SrQuskPmfebnAsUcIKQPBIravbyQdGdD19OSsktI4K9OyAYTf h05OZtU8GoCOwJ2dGuEPXmPuZePjRiRuZUXMHgHw=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6EEA5HF7UTZ4YYATF3SVKNXEVBNHHB3EM4KU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3053/533944616@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3053@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3053@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding requirement seems to be incorrect. (#3053)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d88306bb5ff5_273b3fb3278cd95c22954b"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/jAqUhEtIXn4pp6mojrxdNl7Zw5k>
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, 23 Sep 2019 02:39:43 -0000

On consideration, I think that the requirement is simple and we don't have to stress about interactions with discarding keys.  If the packet contains an Initial, it's possible that the Initial packet is the only packet that can be used by a server.  Therefore, the datagram should be padded to 1200, regardless of whatever else is included.

So we strike the "only" and we're good.  See 6cfcbe26385f17072ccd330aea619f65bf3bdcb4.

-- 
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/3053#issuecomment-533944616