Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Stuff from the RPC review of RFC 9000 (#4917)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2021 18:04:31 -0700

Individual commits break this down, but this is all fairly prosaic stuff..
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4917

-- Commit Summary --

  * Stateless Reset ~~packet~~
  * Packet Number field capitals
  * Invalid Token (field) received
  * it&#39;s field values that matter for this bit
  * Fix run-on
  * You can&#39;t use BCP citations, not really
  * Correct titles in citations

-- File Changes --

    M rfc8999.md (2)
    M rfc9000.md (55)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4917.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4917.diff

-- 
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/pull/4917

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2021 18:09:42 -0700

@ianswett approved this pull request.

-- 
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/pull/4917#pullrequestreview-660490770

---

From: Nick Banks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2021 18:18:54 -0700

@nibanks approved this pull request.

-- 
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/pull/4917#pullrequestreview-660492812

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 15:42:47 -0700

@martinthomson pushed 1 commit.

cf750cc2d393981559ae8c5f1465da809995a715  https FTW

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4917/files/6bc3597215b478e637d8fef2ea381e538be534d0..cf750cc2d393981559ae8c5f1465da809995a715

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 15:44:59 -0700

6c8a1d7b2a234a85c7ab50ce9d78683a5e05f25b  invisible change

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4917/files/cf750cc2d393981559ae8c5f1465da809995a715..6c8a1d7b2a234a85c7ab50ce9d78683a5e05f25b

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 17:00:27 -0700

@janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

I'm not sure of the Stateless Reset changes. See inline.

> @@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ smoothed_rtt.
 Endpoints SHOULD set the min_rtt to the newest RTT sample after persistent
 congestion is established. This avoids repeatedly declaring persistent
 congestion when the RTT increases. This also allows a connection to reset
-its estimate of min_rtt and smoothed_rtt after a disruptive network event;
+its estimate of min_rtt and smoothed_rtt after a disruptive network event;

I like pink spaces better.

> @@ -6916,10 +6915,10 @@ that are received on a different network path.
 The Source and Destination Connection ID fields are the primary means of
 protection against an off-path attack during the handshake; see
 {{validate-handshake}}.  These are required to match those set by a peer.
-Except for Initial and Stateless Reset packets, an endpoint only accepts
-packets that include a Destination Connection ID field that matches a value the
-endpoint previously chose.  This is the only protection offered for Version
-Negotiation packets.
+Except for Initial and Stateless Resets, an endpoint only accepts packets that

I'm not convinced that this is more consistent (here and all the Stateless Reset changes above). Just at the bottom of this paragraph, we say Version Negotiation packets. Given that the capital case represents packet types, what is the argument for removing packets? I'll admit it's redundant, but we use it quite a bit elsewhere, and I believe that it'd be more consistent to use `Stateless Reset packets`.

-- 
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/pull/4917#pullrequestreview-661520681

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 17:08:57 -0700

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.

My hex decoder tells me that this is non-breaking space.  How that got there is ... interesting.

-- 
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/pull/4917#discussion_r633942508

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 17:10:04 -0700

Ah, but Version Negotiation is a packet (it is defined thus).  Stateless Reset is defined as a UDP datagram, not a packet.  That's why (at least in my opinion) the change is necessary.

-- 
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/pull/4917#discussion_r633942896

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 17:46:27 -0700

f3d241b3a8883d942c7ca49e7979d7fc6740bd6b  it is Initial *packets*

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4917/files/6c8a1d7b2a234a85c7ab50ce9d78683a5e05f25b..f3d241b3a8883d942c7ca49e7979d7fc6740bd6b

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 17:46:53 -0700

@janaiyengar approved this pull request.

Thanks for clarifying and for fixing the one awkward case.

-- 
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/pull/4917#pullrequestreview-661539862

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 17:47:27 -0700

Merged #4917 into master.

-- 
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/pull/4917#event-4757597601

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 13:53:41 -0700

@MikeBishop commented on this pull request.

> @@ -4345,7 +4344,7 @@ injection as specified in {{!RFC8201}} and {{Section 5.2 of RFC8085}}.  This
 validation SHOULD use the quoted packet supplied in the payload of an ICMP
 message to associate the message with a corresponding transport connection (see
 {{Section 4.6.1 of DPLPMTUD}}).  ICMP message validation MUST include matching
-IP addresses and UDP ports {{!BCP145}} and, when possible, connection IDs to
+IP addresses and UDP ports {{!RFC8085}} and, when possible, connection IDs to

Not related to this change, but why is this a normative reference and line 4305 informative?

-- 
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/pull/4917#pullrequestreview-662563738