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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

clarify CID length requirements for VN packets #4187

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Oct 15, 2020
Merged

clarify CID length requirements for VN packets #4187

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
9fc4a11
add text about CID lengths to the invariants
marten-seemann Oct 8, 2020
ec17412
clarify that future QUIC versions might have different CID length req…
marten-seemann Oct 8, 2020
05cc5d9
use @martinthomson's suggestion for the invariants
marten-seemann Oct 9, 2020
3fec711
apply @martinthompson's and @MikeBishop's suggestions
marten-seemann Oct 9, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 2 additions & 3 deletions draft-ietf-quic-invariants.md
View file
Open in desktop
Expand Up @@ -316,9 +316,8 @@ connection IDs gives clients some assurance that the server received the packet
and that the Version Negotiation packet was not generated by an off-path
attacker.

A server MUST NOT apply any restrictions to the length of the connection IDs
when deciding whether to send a Version Negotiation Packet, even if it only
supports QUIC versions that restrict the acceptable lengths of connection IDs.
Version-specific rules for QUIC packets MUST NOT influence a server decision

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The text in the transport doc is fine; this is, as David says, a little sketchy without the minimum length constraint. A prefix of "other than the minimum packet size, ..." might work, I guess.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Or scope the MUST NOT specifically to CID interpretation.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, I think this proposal is unclear on what the "MUST NOT" is for.

about whether to send a Version Negotiation packet.

An endpoint that receives a Version Negotiation packet might change the version
that it decides to use for subsequent packets. The conditions under which an
Expand Down