Re: Is the invariants draft really standards track?

Jana Iyengar <> Wed, 27 May 2020 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECB463A0F64 for <>; Wed, 27 May 2020 09:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C4DLfDHcixBf for <>; Wed, 27 May 2020 09:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 689E63A0F6C for <>; Wed, 27 May 2020 09:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v16so29622139ljc.8 for <>; Wed, 27 May 2020 09:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0ITk9jlg5xb+ySCYLDA7cW7quA57icS5HUZpSzzPijI=; b=gnz1wijHITcFg/WQBcBq6jd4WknZv4a6fkwrcyDQm5pQr2oTsUux3Ad07y68jKNlV8 pVTAQB1RB4udi3zRtPvEKRs8mc0WKq4jeQ3vRPR9bso/ZhfjVMRGpPoT3z11OC4m0cYY h+/2ldgir5NBVzXS0Kc/MWp6zHXRDClOfONhTpB3urIbR3YN61pjgphjSA1GhHW91mBQ /2yxXZ5+TIFtIwvJzIyxBpSVrri3ta0qlxRtvZw91QGVFSjbaGFclfewjJVygcgqaGvZ ziQR6Ja3lc2tZPEvPvZliV9q/L75wp8br6D/w0vKI1sZ44cTn7+sz2o9tZQjIKek8HHR HPuA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0ITk9jlg5xb+ySCYLDA7cW7quA57icS5HUZpSzzPijI=; b=Y43P/xVehQnacAZ0IVggbQJdbpfJWYEgQ8Ly8R3l9vCagJAU7+EocM4R+i7fB88Ly+ wlZGZU8otD2MgGKznw7C+oBdTUzexzirnVfWrvyQGXIDRdg8+fS3fRwQQxUQLhrwkoAJ 5sMF5mqyn87XvbNDWXNVAJS7F4z71PZcYgZwjnoXAZc9xI8LcppAzZ6dBkMZ5lGkgCPM Y05rw4SqRTNUxFswCUvP6oEUsUGBzH1kyMyoxYZZIdFDtdPR/b27sTe3axgB0SGX0MhN xqb07qfSMNr9DiKYf0PT7lzjboh83aKoloytxda6xlakgrnC247OEJPPHx9sDkqaVUj7 eIbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530g8Beyuvojy5EXt2wVvZH82rorsXYnqDrxRbjvvbRrl+83C5lz jBqx+BCCdJGZHQy0AbwYJIcgWOBe6YbHfkLiTvk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzs7Bl04XBlW4/RMIiLHr95qun6nNp7HQC8SlPDTUD4h4mX206gDi9TWdF4VN8q0EHI1ybyi6wB/k+43RvaEUY=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9f17:: with SMTP id u23mr3117490ljk.400.1590595429566; Wed, 27 May 2020 09:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 09:03:38 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Is the invariants draft really standards track?
To: Kyle Rose <>
Cc: Ian Swett <>, Lars Eggert <>, IETF QUIC WG <>, Martin Duke <>, Jared Mauch <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008f8a9b05a6a35b1c"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 16:03:54 -0000

I think this is basically one MUST in the invariants document about
conformance. ... and yes, I'm happy to have it too.

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 8:28 AM Kyle Rose <> wrote:

> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:34 AM Ian Swett <ianswett=
>> wrote:
>> I was agreeing with MT, but I'm happy to see some more MUSTs added if
>> people feel that'd be helpful.
> Coincidentally, we were just talking about this internally at Akamai
> yesterday. IMO, an invariants document isn't really helpful if it isn't
> normative, and for it to be normative it (or a related practices doc for
> operators) really needs to spell out clear boundaries for operators with
> MUSTs..
> The example that came up yesterday was around operators filtering QUIC in
> the event of a DDoS: one recommendation based on some conversations going
> back at least to Prague 2019 was to hash packets on 4-tuple and filter
> those below a hash value chosen for a desired ingress limit instead of
> doing what most operators do with UDP today, which is to cap UDP throughput
> and just drop packets randomly or tail drop.
> This recommendation certainly imposes some constraints on future protocol
> development that motivate new invariants: for instance, it would preclude
> sharding a connection across multiple source ports (not that there is
> necessarily a reason to do this; it's just an example). But more
> importantly, it goes beyond invariants: it's one among many practices
> compatible with the current set of invariants, some reasonable and some
> terrible.
> Operators are going to do things to QUIC traffic, so it would be good to
> offer them recommendations that are compatible with broad deployability.
> Kyle