Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Anti-amplification limits should count junk too (#3340)

ianswett <> Wed, 05 February 2020 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49A1C12083D for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 10:36:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rPKS6ipajMaO for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 10:36:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B640120833 for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 10:36:17 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 10:36:15 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1580927776; bh=Apfd2QfV7/5QqvRSbaVKauygt+l+yXRmwEfd78ZPUUQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=p07NG/HqVeJOHkjYdXYNJdEii/zZvVkb1KhK/0OfU2wXs0htg9ViddtDYLGOwMv6W MlBzw8m/thGZ0f+cUNFMgCv9Z2dTYiNep4laIlhiiZgTBGTTvKtSwH3Y15WatvK9uX x943qW5OwwQsJqu0CUzM58uYzVgdE0gqamIdbapg=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3340/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Anti-amplification limits should count junk too (#3340)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e3b0b1fcd365_3b8c3fec138cd964655c5"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 18:36:19 -0000

So the interesting case is when 0-RTT is accepted, but address validation is not?  And therefore, the server can process 0-RTT packets but cannot send much in response?

If so, I hadn't considered that, but I could document that case in recovery if it's helpful?

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