IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Big TP codespace

Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 16 May 2019 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD13120192 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2019 18:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 S3N54qFGYFIN for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2019 18:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x132.google.com (mail-lf1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E67A120183 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2019 18:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x132.google.com with SMTP id f1so1282356lfl.6 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2019 18:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1W3hWG/xXhtOglZ4c11ah5er0d0CZkT48XxkbQ8XSZE=; b=e770l3INuRkjz8urNCtAgKGCngrZnbmHjThOyINBhz6GzY9vWxKvxFbzbllmXRNRlN zsgzM+RMy0+ikfWWhlQPb8PRifeuTMPCFqrhkGSCIFwv7+NAln7/gSNddtODuoVrl9bK FaYJ+wuedOrs9tfwx5lxWxk3VhC+Jq+apkB1A2nIZWJL8KhrMvcODEv9t3oZkwQXfOcQ 8ycVWIk4fEjW4+nQYbGgR5x321VvP71Ns/2HOXL6iZLWDfgr2DqJMuChX5t5iWYLNrjQ GfDcgFkgNp1EEbVwTNWickgBzfcwMJPs+nc1dz7F88Pzgmgi6xQVsSGHrte1jTOs0GwM W45w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1W3hWG/xXhtOglZ4c11ah5er0d0CZkT48XxkbQ8XSZE=; b=mnM1OGnfECmwD9jUxDdxA5fDLK72ke4MNKtDprRAzOoMcnbju5oua8E0zyy9/9rojw Y6ZTdzHgqpw0dXMwx2fhtT864a+qOCbvt871jevrYOiHLvG+duqVhCCIPAZrntNGffi+ eW9ImfF18StetHnixo/Doy0ugeKHY+nX+TKGOG9TDQrViHrafFZd0AL6wJAyGeOBhcle a01ylYCp+L20kmnANRJeGPvx0TpoWGZBfp2ApbMgOJRrlXsqSjNgfkbTL7tIqjHXBpgK or/ljXWkQZKwadU6W4qZpaOiCZm0W8/0SA40ot2gc4/o9RttrjbA3PkLEMsp0ICGhuiI 1Uyg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW1RnvTZl/nmKkalRWEV59JRoIHpCY5so7byr1/bKB+6e95QwYA oVtlIETiSyGcug1SYYkMbDbvgUk35Am8GwwO9Rc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzzOaNj1gZVG9TpQoFjEWstZ6oWJYCzS5f/8f4cZZTkkyqadBx5DGY/+JGlpl0NwyZakDOE6MlAgXVkjbrgqjs=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5621:: with SMTP id b1mr23283019lff.27.1557971241577; Wed, 15 May 2019 18:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxRBmm8CVWWeg=Fq6=JzS0ftQsj=0T6CfhQ8KHmkUNpenQ@mail.gmail.com> <C91C33EC-323B-41AB-8856-9FE56A065CF3@huitema.net> <CAPDSy+4KiCaG_ap_R=qcSm9wYA8ZU94983d5YWV3AZ9Vz=WHMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPpLh9ejrg-VbYKyL5rYV2=Y533SrqA+A_-jM4R-sGZ0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CY4PR22MB0983FBE5C72EF1D46DAC27ECDA090@CY4PR22MB0983.namprd22.prod.outlook.com> <CAPDSy+6FtX6J1yNzf6cQC8Xr_7J60ULjiTJ2zNhRou-3+QyB+Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+6FtX6J1yNzf6cQC8Xr_7J60ULjiTJ2zNhRou-3+QyB+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 18:47:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CACpbDcew+zgZJ2Y7qC+zwoMrGrdzoagB6HtC=z=woNzB6FrhXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Big TP codespace
To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006caf240588f7720b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/M_PM8UISL1zPXaYQKBGZvn7l5Ko>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 01:47:28 -0000

Martin, the text in #2691 supports what you want to accomplish, but doesn't
require everyone to do the same thing. I think that's all we need.

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:44 AM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> @ekr, the principle I was endorsing is the one Mike mentioned.
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:20 AM Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be> wrote:
>
>> We agreed in Tokyo that we would not mandate that implementations check
>> for improper peer behavior when doing so required substantial extra work.
>> Implementations MUST error out on easily-detected errors, but only
>> SHOULD/MAY error on things they would have to actively check (unless
>> they’re already required to actively check for security reasons, in which
>> case there’s no *extra* work).
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* QUIC <quic-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Eric Rescorla
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2019 5:21 PM
>> *To:* David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>; Christian Huitema <
>> huitema@huitema.net>; Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: Big TP codespace
>>
>>
>>
>> What's the bigger principle you are endorsing? What errors "like this"
>> are we not requiring detection of?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:19 PM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Our implementation checks for duplicates only for the transport
>> parameters it supports. I think #2691
>> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2691/files> is the correct
>> solution.
>>
>>
>>
>> +1 to the design principle of encouraging but not requiring detection of
>> errors like this
>>
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:06 PM Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema..net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 13, 2019, at 1:58 PM, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > What do people think?
>>
>> I think the general rule of protocol policing should be "MUST NOT" do
>> dastardly stuff, and "MAY" drop the connection when that happens.
>>
>> -- Christian Huitema
>>
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email