IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] NEW_TOKEN should be symmetric (#2760)

Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com> Mon, 03 June 2019 08:40 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 D78C41201C3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 01:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.806
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.415, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 9xZFfg6gnkIM for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 01:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 316091201BE for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 01:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 01:40:36 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1559551236; bh=kvp+i/5ZZKq6qIUr089iO4Ec8MEbvlHTyUX+KVQ5zAI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=IOvxnbx19D9kf05Sa2mp8RXpSHCQ7IrSQMTxDRv/htwq5+FSzpKse9dCEGHCS4qle GcuaPToq8nEBQ1krX0JbzmF9NDzhkBwTsuQbBJH/nllOLxH53ddGsyBYgFpja49QNe 32y7ZtomJQnXao6axesGEHghpAPLg8Orhv0dB41I=
From: Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4NNXQOAPMTQFUXM653AIHYJEVBNHHBVVRQLI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2760/498166706@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2760@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2760@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] NEW_TOKEN should be symmetric (#2760)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cf4dd04221e8_475e3ff5860cd968135721d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
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/7BEwzSuShLzWMlz5-J4YC_FaXFY>
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: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 08:40:41 -0000

When establishing a new connection, how a token was obtained doesn't play any role. Endpoints can distribute tokens by any way they want. NEW_TOKEN frames are just one way to do so, but tokens might as well be distributed out-of-band.

We made a lot of effort to make QUIC as symmetric as possible. The only exceptions are the 0-RTT feature of the handshake (we inherited this from TLS), and connection migration (which would cause a lot of corner cases). I don't understand why the NEW_TOKEN mechanism fits any of these criteria. Conceptionally, if at all, it seems to be less complexity to allow this frame in both directions.

-- 
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/2760#issuecomment-498166706

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email