Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does it make sense to try 0-RTT after Retry? (#2842)

Nick Banks <> Tue, 25 June 2019 02:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03895120230 for <>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 19:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zsa-h9k56Gr5 for <>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 19:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B98D12022A for <>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 19:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 19:49:48 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1561430988; bh=jxgwuU49l3vnP1d4chZWKTFXlv/w42Dy10+RDP3DaEM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=BcQ80y06aeXSGnoAhWNhM9pcCSdSbRWvLrMj6PpWbuSRghf2gi0QpAtEmPRw0WESJ 3Gvjd0zAR8cULTM7E7UUym+C5+i/jPnhCqfEs3GnHIRTb0tKoL8qHLLpqKYo8D5xUT T6fTY1HT5dKXvwDk11LbIuGMslnx8H3s7S+jugtE=
From: Nick Banks <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2842/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does it make sense to try 0-RTT after Retry? (#2842)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d118bcca68dc_7fc53f96af2cd9601879bd"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
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: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 02:49:56 -0000

When our implementation does Retry, it's because we've hit a memory pressure limit and we want to protect ourselves from attack. If a client supplies us with a valid token, we will accept 0-RTT still, but we won't buffer it from the previous Initial (without a token). So, if the client gets a Retry and still wants to do 0-RTT then need to retransmit it, with the new CID, in a new packet (with a new packet number). I don't see why that design should be prevented.

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