Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maximum packet size? (#383)
janaiyengar <notifications@github.com> Fri, 10 March 2017 23:36 UTC
Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 F26E2129490 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:36:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.617
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.617 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 7LCdZyvnqGpQ for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:36:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o11.sgmail.github.com (o11.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9A99127A91 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:36:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; 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=OPV7yOx9k8dKoDxm2Q1aNAxs120=; b=PLmRLMX7tA4oTjKw 8d/GikjYXkGOkfVliXcpO96jWFRaMh4jTqFt2o97zN9O+IaxCqDtwdkT+JafDYbK oLOOeKR3688Kpj4c9Rb7W48a3wegX5ScbqH5AnlsEaSIRAc5qwPEW8iK2iYictBq rppaFNJZ8iAnyFtzBsOiC6jFRXs=
Received: by filter0819p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0819p1mdw1-19724-58C33862-24 2017-03-10 23:36:02.251069422 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.17]) by ismtpd0003p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id r3CTjEg7TXm9nAUN0RG3_g for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 23:36:02.121 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:36:02 -0800
From: janaiyengar <notifications@github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383/285814632@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maximum packet size? (#383)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_58c33861f421a_cc63fc6b522fc34919c9"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3CghCwMJIp0Q1+ubtMJLCptAR0LNZw/EX135 vyuwf/UP3J4XhjDxZ5h29pjZhtPLn7VUWDfhmofGAnJefghFwzBSTm+eyWpElC0HCn9iGOSqgD36qp EwRdFmaRnMG+UWZQP8/Hw5KWX9U3LUg0SrpNkVVc1Wa48aKnH0iHgWNdH7S/b4PNGRuSqVTbrGAjNt A=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/uSVsoucxkWjoj3SHjzLkr9mLCjI>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: quic@ietf.org
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: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 23:36:05 -0000
@Aron-Schats: the minimum size is required to avoid amplification attacks (see Packetization and Reliability section in the transport draft.) I think removing the error code is fine. Anything that an endpoint sends as an untested packet size mid-connection will naturally be a part of PMTUD, in which case, the endpoint will also be prepared to deal with it getting dropped. I would expect detecting server support of an untested packet size to be part of PMTUD. -- 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/issues/383#issuecomment-285814632
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maxim… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson