Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handling of corrupt Retry packets (#3014)

Nick Banks <> Tue, 17 September 2019 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C1991208D2 for <>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 06:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
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 H1mFd36lhpYg for <>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 06:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF878120865 for <>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 06:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 06:31:35 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1568727095; bh=UrUoq6wcxGlAIa+x1CDPWLY18CFgyJNUWt2AjmfkPEE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=FetR+1dAjCsB7LhDBBGN6wR/cHq1CxBNgu8AskuvbTCDeg3QtGStXb0uyerO0bpcv U8NNmRU82UX2+6hIb8h78ymGCp/+hm8we4DZngabSLSW7dHCbQzgIfhAgRrIiWtYDI CLoJmMer7RlQy5/RK5Xj/mALCJcED9ZG6ofMJQMU=
From: Nick Banks <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3014/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handling of corrupt Retry packets (#3014)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d80e036f3a99_379e3fed252cd95c250550"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:31:47 -0000

I would prefer not to encrypt the Retry packet and keep things how they are. We've done a lot of work to create a design that requires the least amount of work to accomplish the stateless retry scenario. Adding an additional level of encryption, just to get a checksum (something that is practically, already accomplished in most deployments with UDP) is just going to add complexity (we've already started work with HW vendors on the current model, and it's complexity, compared to TCP, is already a major hurdle).

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