Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Version negotiation, reserved or 0x?a?a?a?a (#2540)

Jan <> Thu, 21 March 2019 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710FE130FC4 for <>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 04:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 f808JQR9bi8M for <>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 04:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 878E0130F6A for <>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 04:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=02bEzc/yiW36UuJqoEsQKRQ4QlU=; b=WrdGHHN5imwpfq2O Zc6Yfy6D/9h5iBgolmIDTaFIa5x63af4nrF4uLsmIn9x2YJMSUWtes2wrexedrqY dQuESX42LR4c8Syjzj7IkKuHDr7JXkSkEbi79OEkeLnnVmjl17bN81eUPQ7gzWJo lai1G3iCCMz/PCP0ba+ZQ/61k4U=
Received: by with SMTP id filter1209p1las1-9242-5C9370F2-1E 2019-03-21 11:09:38.466876423 +0000 UTC m=+218403.685913546
Received: from (unknown []) by (SG) with ESMTP id U3aGv9dZQyaOLQ94DTfvmQ for <>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:09:38.571 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38B6EC0D3D for <>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 04:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:09:38 +0000 (UTC)
From: Jan <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2540/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Version negotiation, reserved or 0x?a?a?a?a (#2540)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c9370f237228_6c8c3fde25cd45b82827e6"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janrueth
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3zHA26cDqBScYV4kISr/B/0K8HrsUlvUSA2J yVo6LQOJxccxB8ptd6MlPv30KVGVJbPcwM6k0eOlU6T/Z+0K92w+ZdsPVBi+7GQGUi5M7xq6k+tO4+ 5pN1R0A1FjZiiLmQtn7XwaOBRqN35oPbQYU0qmTGCBQtRk74cJUFRcDrLw==
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: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:09:42 -0000

In my opinion having an implementation that advertises possible future standards versions without actually supporting them seems wrong, what happens if the other side actually supports this version?
This seems like it could deadlock or look like a bidding down attack in case the client moves to a lower version to resolve the deadlock.

On the other hand, announcing standards versions helps to not ossify around the 0x?a?a?a?a pattern but to me announcing standards versions does not seem like a solution to this.

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