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

Marten Seemann <> Wed, 15 January 2020 04:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E8AB120128 for <>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 20:47:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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 qzCYntSfeUms for <>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 20:47:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 808AD12011F for <>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 20:47:30 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 20:47:29 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579063650; bh=l4FWn7LitK8jn1ISVuUqvPY/HQHsYC9G3b/VVThpR9c=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=R8r1S+xITrMxSsaCMlpjyGM48bu0S4HKc4zXnITl/qrosENEnLk5cUldMkvP/YsRg mSJB/dH5f2i4Xir4wSjkXeqmLV7AtEMyn6A/CegNK2JzSoxo+/a9oQdlOCQzqkARjT Q/X1NocyOKk/Ye+lm6RwYb0VB5oartdW3ffTaEBg=
From: Marten Seemann <>
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_5e1e9961bed20_5b893fdd830cd9605978f9"; 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
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, 15 Jan 2020 04:47:32 -0000

I'd like us to be a little bit more specific than "junk bytes". I can imagine that for many implementations, it would be hard to associate random junk sent from the same 4-tuple with the newly established connection, since implementations will track connections by their CID, not by 4-tuple.

If our intention is to include 0-RTT packets, it would be sufficient to count all datagrams that are received with the same QUIC DCID (no matter if they're actually processed or not).

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