Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow server to enforce post-Retry packet numbering (#3989)

Kazuho Oku <> Tue, 11 August 2020 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668AF3A0D8E for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 8wSE7-TXht0T for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A4913A0D8C for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3691B840E81 for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1597186559; bh=CjjUroVxTPBVREhkIjYERUXvrY4+dgwr2bXaGn+pS1k=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=dNYVQr87u6tnmgD5AlauUwbf92XFF/gJBLVtM8MZlFgCv4QkgCYnCUoIPlUWDzqhm uQe71kc8eJHtllCd8EPQckSt9iRQQ7vafb5Ulvk0ii00oB4d6O60oRuIjRG8W0z+uP VmX2WRT0R9xUbNnCf4mT8CMo8CN8ohx+I7PoQ4w8=
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:55:59 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3989/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow server to enforce post-Retry packet numbering (#3989)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f3321ff26dc4_1fc016f8123363"; 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: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 22:56:01 -0000

I agree that it is unlikely that servers detecting this behavior would help MITM attackers. My concern was mostly from a consistency standpoint regarding what we write down in spec.

That said, I would not oppose to using a MAY here. It is already implied by the MUST NOT on the client-side, so to me it is an editorial change.

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