Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] This seems like tuning (#4020)

Gorry Fairhurst <> Tue, 25 August 2020 09:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7A33A090C for <>; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 02:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.081
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.282, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5AHcGzwpuKKQ for <>; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 02:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 402723A08E5 for <>; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 02:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 207735201EC for <>; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 02:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1598346665; bh=VSk3bDA4CN/0nl5VyRRjyjd3AWyX27YEMBYXwVp4wzY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=JQ7xzqcQx+vmNn0ujwyVLY3Hd7AoGtf+WnKf/R4OtDXl4pSQRJ7SgG60V47UnnvJ4 JVlrxjbk2BIo+eKhQgbPdO8HPjQpm0AZqJerMmUtSvUSV4BqIOe2R9IgMq4Q8VMH3q qhOZlcnhlRg/m+jr4wL7EL6fo5zqYRGltkmlRWTg=
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 02:11:05 -0700
From: Gorry Fairhurst <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4020/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] This seems like tuning (#4020)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f44d5a911485_1d81196418796b8"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gorryfair
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, 25 Aug 2020 09:11:07 -0000

I'm looking for two things:

(i) I think this ought to clarify the intention for the SHOULD, I suspect it is clear to those working on this part, but not clear to me why this is a recommendation - i.e., specifically can you give me a use-case of why the Server would otherwise *USE* information from a packet from an unknown version, unless the intention is to say the server shouldn't waste resources to do try to do this? 
(ii) I think this implies understanding of Section 14.1 later in the spec, and a ref would help.

* Is it equally true that..  
"Servers MUST NOT use the contents of a packet with an unknown version, and SHOULD NOT decrypt this packet, but instead send a Version Negotiation packet, provided that
the packet is sufficiently long (see Section 14.1)."?

* Or perhaps simply explain something like: 
"Servers SHOULD NOT commit resources to attempt to decode or decrypt a packet from an
unknown version, but instead send a Version Negotiation packet, provided that
the packet is sufficiently long (see Section 14.1)."?

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