Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does the amplification limit apply to PTO packets? (#3413)

ekr <> Wed, 05 February 2020 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7008E1200C1 for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:58:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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 xNK4-N-9wTR9 for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAE72120059 for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4465C1210F2 for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:58:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1580914704; bh=+sAmUuqSfe6v4GqiSr1N0EqkrQf54dqGiIlaS2zlOrQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=lAOe2C2FvGAL7K+WMbSpdgh/qrAq21qaF5D7gyS+/AeGFx3GCPmahw3Qhq9S2Es/p 0lKS/C6csmnfM2tByow50eImZD0HZrd4zqoWo8pUfjFLePGGQ51dEe9MOkb8nsti2j mlmjebOERyBty8D7NTaGerAd1LVPdGQ1M8un0n2Q=
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 06:58:23 -0800
From: ekr <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3413/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does the amplification limit apply to PTO packets? (#3413)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e3ad80ff34dc_4a603fd0d1ccd968603b6"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ekr
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: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 14:58:32 -0000

Repeating what I said earlier: it's not clear to me that not being able to arm the PTO timer when at the limit implies that PTO packets count against the amplification limit. The reason is that you could have *already* armed the PTO timer at the time you hit the limit. E.g., you might be streaming 0.5RTT and so send Initial, Handshake, arm timer, <wait> 0.5RTT.

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