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

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 11:09 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 156D1120130 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 03:09:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 XRiiwf2YvD4p for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 03:09:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41246120108 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 03:09:30 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 03:09:29 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1580814569; bh=94jTm0A6uGODFIohlptpva/b3exyCO53NB3sP15Gdxc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=uaj+37tWvszesRTJZsAm2iSMaNQ6lPNfys51tqxTQfYuLiIonhzuKa54uNdNChZvL pKeSp47BX01MGNzprV/d3LStPrlvxZulAAf7zHsvBxkTTrMPXqHOSKZPe/MFTRXy4L irCJt/3K4rIrGmCHtQ4XIM4v5IilyGxhQyHdzzS8=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6L6DCFTGLDCL3AO4V4I2BWTEVBNHHCBQHUUM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3340/581857902@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3340@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3340@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Anti-amplification limits should count junk too (#3340)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e3950e9840db_31d93ffd9a0cd96022458e"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/wM1P3y17M9bR6gElCrEc5DzdlLA>
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, 04 Feb 2020 11:09:32 -0000

To add normative language to Martin's statement, "If a packet is successfully processed, then the bytes of the datagram that it was contained in MUST count toward the amplification limit."

Additionally, I'd suggest if the long header matches, but it's not processable(ie: 0-RTT), then it SHOULD count and pure junk MAY count.  As such clients cannot rely on non processable packets to increase amplification limits.

-- 
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/3340#issuecomment-581857902