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

Kazuho Oku <> Fri, 17 January 2020 11:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45F612001B for <>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 03:36:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.595
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.595 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 gfM8gwrrXRVE for <>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 03:36:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C31012001E for <>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 03:36:17 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 03:36:16 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579260976; bh=r4pwJ3+c6ydW8QzJ0npUjyVkrpI53PXdOUiwG8SU9wY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=KLB3nuzslA1NuwUjdGAXs6Vv5YOrq5iRYabRgSHMfa3vqrshhko9JcvGgobJ4un49 npPI3mu/nJxInEYYmN6Wme0gKUGaA7qXHPgea7ZJQrcWyW1p2HIrhrF8Y/4Od9gwcB GZ4pY+SQ50wWzk7Txp84Ntr4GkloA/I/he/skOCE=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3333/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding outside QUIC packet (#3333)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e219c3085a0c_59743fccc1ecd95c119213"; 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
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: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:36:22 -0000

My point is that while I'm not against making an editorial change stating that a receiver should process coalesced packets of a datagram until it sees a broken packet, I would not prefer adding a statement that implies that a client might pad outside of QUIC packets, because doing so is might have negative effects, and trying to resolve those negative effects are likely to introduce complexity.

To be clear, my understanding is that this issue is about a misbehaving client failing to talk to some servers. The specification says that an endpoint MUST expand the packet to 1,200 bytes by "padding to packets in the datagram as necessary," ([section 8.1.3]( which explicitly means that padding should happen at the packet level, not at the datagram level.

We might even argue that some servers not handling those broken datagram is a benefit, as it helps us find bugs in the client.

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