Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] introduce an error code for loss recovery-related errors (#2319)

Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com> Wed, 09 January 2019 09:02 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 64C62128766 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 01:02:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.661
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 ekjxvqYjtsHM for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 01:02:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E30CA1274D0 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 01:02:06 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 01:02:05 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1547024525; bh=9h4IG8c9Q+8r+iEVRPeTSr25SGYlpVPjSIzBjM4QYdw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=1F0groQXcPqscW8135b1SneJDHPYMYznXHHl3s6uos51MwzNv5u81+rHdahS7fTE8 /Ksi7peiNVNRNWB6ZHQq5RVny9wfvWhP+yezeOPK7rnXLoNE5+qDYWDGTHHoe/O3gY AuIrY+qlPwp1+pXKfm8Vgsnk7NMK7pF+5FuL3QnI=
From: Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abc0d6331d7892167727b7e846e666e2e644c9d9b192cf00000001184d7a8d92a169ce17ada169@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2319/452621421@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2319@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2319@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] introduce an error code for loss recovery-related errors (#2319)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c35b88dc8007_669e3fa2330d45c03277ca"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
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/uzQCbke64FkvBFK3BydL9xwkhKk>
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, 09 Jan 2019 09:02:09 -0000

Then why do we have different error codes stream states, flow control etc.? There are real attacks here as well, and I don't see why they would be less severe than loss recovery-related attacks. At least we should be consistent.
If we really say that all errors just give an attacker more information, let's kill all error codes except NO_ERROR and SERVER_BUSY.

-- 
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/2319#issuecomment-452621421