Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Anti-amplification limits should count junk too (#3340)

ianswett <> Tue, 04 February 2020 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E97120145 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 03:34:32 -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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RjtiDWKh7chJ for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 03:34:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65905120144 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 03:34:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E9ED2C0BD4 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 03:34:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1580816062; bh=1moJL4KiS+SGEyqHilryLhXTEhZcfe0vepY1c+2uhoA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=QshDy4qB9Pgv/ON/UQFra9NkpPLpnKnciROfqhq9C6rs3+KJXhBKo3l6MG3QrePyZ bepNneKHiw4iRamV4cb8bB460MTw7Fg2S/SXcIDUEoBr2iPO/NzcGs3H/M6UwfK+P8 FKs0UGz3sbh92Anu9ixh/Y0PkLfLpcAZtfKuGPqs=
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 03:34:22 -0800
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3340/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Anti-amplification limits should count junk too (#3340)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e3956be3e19b_7f613fee4d4cd9683132f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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, 04 Feb 2020 11:34:33 -0000

All client Initial packets are in full-sized datagrams, based on my understanding, so a PING is fine in practice.

And the PTO is never armed for 0-RTT, so the probe packets would not be 0-RTT.  That being said, I'm a bit concerned those are SHOULDs and not MUSTs.

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