Re: Expected Client Response to SERVER_BUSY

[Töma Gavrichenkov <[e-mail]>]

> This mechanism provides a very low CPU cost
> fast fallback to TCP under DoS attacks until all
> infrastructure can support QUIC natively

There are [a] few use cases when switching from TCP to QUIC v1 (in its
current state) is not feasible because of huge operational costs. So it
would be a more long term solution than that, probably till v2 or even
further.

> anything we do to allow non-malicious ones to
> respond appropriately requires pre-sharing,
> or for the connection to succeed

The question here is basically how to ensure the latter given a X00 Gbps
attack scale if you're neither Facebook nor Google.

> In some circumstances, falling back to TCP
> may be something that the application shouldn't do

Well, maybe, but then IMO the consequences of not being able to benefit
from switching to TCP if you're doing certain things with QUIC should be
outlined in the spec. Again, this is an application-level thing *now*, but
formerly the transport used to take full care of it, and the change in that
sort of breaks the habit of the users.

--
Töma