Discarding an invalid Initial is allowed #4359
Conversation
But we managed to hide that in the security considerations. Closes #4350.
martinthomson
added
editorial
|
This PR is fine, but I agree with @huitema above. I think we should add the exception and a reference to this text in 17.2. |
|
How many other rules do we need to create exemptions for? What if the Initial contains a bad frame? What if the CRYPTO frame is too long? |
|
If you don't want to have the discussion about exceptions, then write SHOULD instead of MUST. |
Rather than enumerate all the ways in which processing rules might have exceptions for Initial packets, just include a blanket override here.
|
I don't want to go to SHOULD. Because for other packet types, MUST is what we want. And finding and creating exceptions is impossible. So I have added a "this permission overrides rules that mandate a connection error". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think what @martinthomson says makes sense. This is a "MUST unless" however we cannot have that stated at every point. Having a catch-all statement makes sense.
I tend to wonder if the catch-all statement should be in the Protected Packets section or in the Error Handling section, but the PR looks good regardless.
|
That's a good suggestion. I moved it. Then it is more likely to be seen. |
But we managed to hide that in the security considerations.
Closes #4350.