4 ms·
That interferes with the ability to send multiple requests in-flight at the same time.
by kortex 3y ago
That interferes with the ability to send multiple requests in-flight at the same time.
- tommiegannert 3y agoThere could be a window: the last N sequence numbers are kept in a set, where N is higher than the number of concurrent requests.
- willvarfar 3y agoDoesn't the server discarding requests with the timestamp beyond a threshold already do windowing but statelessly?
- tommiegannert 3y agoI responded to this: >> Timestamps can be vulnerable to clock attacks, right? Why not just include a monotonically increasing request number along with the nonce in each request? > That interferes with the ability to send multiple requests in-flight at the same time. I.e. it was assumed there was a sequence number, and I refuted that it disallows concurrent requests. In general, I agree a signed timestamp is fine.
- apitman 3y agoGood point. Timestamps probably have a much better set of tradeoffs.