Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] receivers cannot enforce datagram padding (though they may drop) (#4254)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Tue, 20 October 2020 06:18 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 59B5D3A1018 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 23:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.101 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 0Y-hi431_aah for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 23:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-26.smtp.github.com (out-26.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D0443A0FFA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 23:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-559ecdf.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.112.85]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 749DF5E0043 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 23:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1603174687; bh=qqTmwLM/9nyg/kMoqJ/BpYdvL63Kx6g6SQj/DA9R82w=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=npBl+JotQo7rZIr5vmZR8fI6ot9H/iUdPV7DbyxORNdlUVfLXiBpsZ1TruJSBbGNQ jAmzHjmcefe80uGktsG2nmGQCxed+Cbn4HyPBPvfuBJaHAuf0OAsWFlGOTqmZRL55e w1hyGy3LQNropfvcmiA9m5l0J1+PHLDG0kP0dpFw=
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 23:18:07 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4YNDCCMEBACL5W3JV5TJRB7EVBNHHCWODDNU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4254/review/512359586@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4254@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4254@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] receivers cannot enforce datagram padding (though they may drop) (#4254)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f8e811f70ce0_3e19b43204d2"; 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/vrp5Dy6HD79UwLQWt91uORbVOpo>
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: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 06:18:10 -0000

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.

This seems sensible.

> @@ -4085,6 +4085,13 @@ UDP datagrams MUST NOT be fragmented at the IP layer.  In IPv4
 ({{!IPv4=RFC0791}}), the DF bit MUST be set if possible, to prevent
 fragmentation on the path.
 
+Even though datagrams with certain properties are required to be padded, the
+size of the datagram is not authenticated, and endpoints might send coalesced
+packets after the handshake is confirmed (see {{packet-coalesce}}).  Therefore,

```suggestion
packets after the handshake is confirmed; see {{packet-coalesce}}.  Therefore,
```

> @@ -4085,6 +4085,13 @@ UDP datagrams MUST NOT be fragmented at the IP layer.  In IPv4
 ({{!IPv4=RFC0791}}), the DF bit MUST be set if possible, to prevent
 fragmentation on the path.
 
+Even though datagrams with certain properties are required to be padded, the

```suggestion
Datagrams are required to be padded under some conditions.  However, the
```

> +size of the datagram is not authenticated, and endpoints might send coalesced
+packets after the handshake is confirmed (see {{packet-coalesce}}).  Therefore,

```suggestion
size of the datagram is not authenticated.  Therefore,
```
I don't think that we need to call this out, but you can use the other suggestion if you prefer.

> @@ -4085,6 +4085,13 @@ UDP datagrams MUST NOT be fragmented at the IP layer.  In IPv4
 ({{!IPv4=RFC0791}}), the DF bit MUST be set if possible, to prevent
 fragmentation on the path.
 
+Even though datagrams with certain properties are required to be padded, the
+size of the datagram is not authenticated, and endpoints might send coalesced
+packets after the handshake is confirmed (see {{packet-coalesce}}).  Therefore,
+an endpoint MUST NOT close a connection when it receives a datagram that does
+not meet the padding requirements, though the endpoint MAY discard such

```suggestion
not meet size constraints, though the endpoint MAY discard such
```

-- 
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/4254#pullrequestreview-512359586