Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number skipping and entropy (#305)

From: MikkelFJ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:36:55 +0000 (UTC)

What is the status on packet number gaps? The current editorial states:

> There are two possible mitigations to this attack. The simplest one is that a server can unilaterally create a gap in packet-number space. In the non-attack scenario, the client will send an ACK frame with the larger value for largest acknowledged. In the attack scenario, the attacker could acknowledge a packet in the gap. If the server sees an acknowledgment for a packet that was never sent, the connection can be aborted.

But do we still want this, or should there be recommendation to keep packet number gaps as small as possible, or within some limit (someone will argue something about block allocations for concurrent transmission subsystems).

Decision on packet number gaps affects both gaps in ongoing ack framing discussion and also choice of data structure in implementations.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/305#issuecomment-334939380