Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update Stream Commitment Attack example #2965

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Aug 12, 2019
Merged

Update Stream Commitment Attack example #2965

merged 4 commits into from
Aug 12, 2019

Conversation

tandf
Copy link
Contributor

@tandf tandf commented Aug 12, 2019

The Stream Commitment Attack part was added in draft-ietf-quic-transport-03, when unidirectional streams were not used.

In draft-ietf-quic-transport-08, streams were split into unidirectional and bidirectional, but this example of stream commitment attack was missed.

The Stream Commitment Attack part was added in draft-ietf-quic-transport-03, when unidirectional streams were not used.

In draft-ietf-quic-transport-08, streams were split into unidirectional and bidirectional, but this example of stream commitment attack was missed.
@@ -5509,7 +5509,7 @@ However, when several streams are initiated at short intervals, transmission
error may cause STREAM DATA frames opening streams to be received out of
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/STREAM DATA frames/STREAM frames/

sequence. A receiver is obligated to open intervening streams if a
higher-numbered stream ID is received. Thus, on a new connection, opening
stream 2000001 opens 1 million streams, as required by the specification.
stream 4000000 opens 1 million streams, as required by the specification.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

1 million and 1, to be precise ;)

@janaiyengar janaiyengar added -transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. labels Aug 12, 2019
@janaiyengar
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks, @tandf! I've done some editorializing, and merging.

@janaiyengar janaiyengar merged commit 60eafb0 into quicwg:master Aug 12, 2019
@tandf tandf deleted the patch-1 branch August 13, 2019 01:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants