Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify client anti-amplification response (#3445)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 19 February 2020 02:01 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA64A120891 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:01:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02DZIXQLjG4G for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:01:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4099712088E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:01:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9606A004B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:01:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1582077669; bh=nxD8nAaQhUv6ugrQMjh4SRUjdAq0ej9OS4V0WIxfY3I=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=2N/rzI+/ZJaH0WIK2SoR+MbSO7tCXklyKJZJ6QfvpmT0pTU+k+jRBypsneUVihBGm M0oFYnXhmQIdwsHMUyeicz6hOQe6rTbjMq6iG9KKT/XlsJBdWuIPQyea3tGes8CDdy vZcOFvI6QzYvDEDoZnjssuGr//SNbgyTkxVtO+UA=
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:01:09 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYSCXK4XTJ2KEBLSDF4LHEWLEVBNHHCDAXLQI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3445/review/360798092@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3445@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3445@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify client anti-amplification response (#3445)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e4c96e540197_41443fd7f78cd96c73117"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/uDU702LdJ43wmWAaDIZJBjr-8q0>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:01:12 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.



> -handshake deadlock, clients MUST send a packet upon a probe timeout, as
-described in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}. If the client has no data to retransmit and does
-not have Handshake keys, it MUST send an Initial packet in a UDP datagram of
-at least 1200 bytes.  If the client has Handshake keys, it SHOULD send a
-Handshake packet.
+Loss of an Initial or Handshake packet from the server can cause a deadlock if
+the client does not send additional Initial or Handshake packets.  The server
+can reach its anti-amplification limit, but if the client has received
+acknowledgements for all the data is has sent, it has no reason to send more
+packets. In this case, where the client would otherwise not send any
+additional packets, the server will be unable to send because it has not
+received enough from the client or validated the clients address. To prevent
+this deadlock, clients MUST send a packet on a probe timeout, or PTO;
+see Section 5.3 of {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}. In this case, the client MUST send an
+Initial packet in a UDP datagram of at least 1200 bytes if it does not have
+Handshake keys, and otherwise send a Handshake packet.
 

It seems to me that this doesn't matter.  Probing generally goes for ack-eliciting, and some might favour sending data over just a PING, but if the server only needs more bytes, it shouldn't matter if this is PADDING, PING, or CRYPTO. 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3445#discussion_r381039296