Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Migration with zero-length CID is inadvisable (#3563)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 15 April 2020 01:09 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79C93A142D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.168, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EJrABb_fETGS for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 924A03A142A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-1dbcc59.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-1dbcc59.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.105.54]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFDD9C60353 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1586912989; bh=c1IL7hNVLnNxxB3fh6WuaNgFqFP0Qp8vdxUi3w+vdiA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=cE3sa3sZGyRFDBtXYCNoOnCCaRb+v8eaNbE+kW/jxoX/Bw487d0FD6xg6K465mZ+9 pguzTQlxQPkrZirKGwo3fvaEBzd7RJXm2NAWgWCXC2x4+eCZR/8x+/FNy42oPwrjeI lfLXR9aN1tl3ylb8SJ+wQ2/IN+c0uZWpEuyZ7eN4=
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:09:49 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6QKLIJHC7OGCWR2FN4UI753EVBNHHCGQM7OQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3563/review/393394151@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3563@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3563@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Migration with zero-length CID is inadvisable (#3563)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e965edddd532_79ed3fe25c8cd95c7782b"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/2dJNpqQn1FLePv343Uu2ZU_9yBk>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 01:09:52 -0000

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2246,6 +2246,14 @@ that packet numbers cannot be used to correlate activity.  This does not prevent
 other properties of packets, such as timing and size, from being used to
 correlate activity.
 
+An endpoint SHOULD NOT initiate migration with a peer that uses a zero-length
+connection ID, for two reasons. First, if the peer routes incoming packets using

What Eric said.  This alone doesn't really motivate the SHOULD NOT; it is just a reason that you might come to regret ignoring it; what matters is the other point.

-- 
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/3563#discussion_r408523260