Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ignore loss of undecryptable packets (#2028)

MikkelFJ <> Wed, 21 November 2018 10:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8100712D4F0 for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 02:34:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.47
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 mEpMs5NUY5b2 for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 02:34:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDE1A12958B for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 02:34:05 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 02:34:04 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1542796444; bh=TmFPedzTU1op2JlZreN5vguk2OlducOYnifVWNXexbU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=wlV54OGwK1PEXX8LKU1JcaabolnpGNHfYHUd6usgxmqn8CczUulXEL6gEXBPF1XIh RYorSmPM4JeUtWK2qkupY4QwAWdE7p3GjoFeIWKUIcwdtxjdIcaVcSoLL03eosbpha 23lIgz5Qf5YRcWZpZP1r7GOv1wHTieffqjTjLyR0=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2028/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ignore loss of undecryptable packets (#2028)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bf5349ccd534_41443fc9866d45b811217f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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, 21 Nov 2018 10:34:08 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.

> @@ -1000,6 +999,17 @@ The recovery period limits congestion window reduction to once per round trip.
 During recovery, the congestion window remains unchanged irrespective of new
 losses or increases in the ECN-CE counter.
+## Loss of protected packets during the handshake
+0RTT and 1RTT packets sent prior to handshake completion can arrive before
+the peer has keys to unprotect them.  In those cases, the peer may decide
+not to buffer the packets.  This will cause the packets to never be
+acknowledged and eventually declared lost, despite being delivered to
+the peer.  If the server rejects 0RTT, then the congestion controller
+SHOULD ignore the loss of 0RTT packets.  If any 0RTT or 1RTT packets sent
+prior to knowing the peer has keys to unprotect them are lost, the
+sender's congestion control MAY ignore the loss of those packets if it's
+believe they were received by the peer prior to having the correct keys.

What if an attacker deliberately sends random packets at high rate? It is not an unlikely attack. Could this shrink the cnwd to the point where valid communication becomes ineffective? If so, it is not a MAY but a MUST.

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