Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Guidance for port number use (#495)

"Benjamin M. Schwartz" <notifications@github.com> Thu, 04 May 2017 16:41 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 033E1129436 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 May 2017 09:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 kECh7c66mEQG for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 May 2017 09:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2-ext8.iad.github.net [192.30.252.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 571EA1286CA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 May 2017 09:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 09:40:58 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1493916058; bh=61QHwLGKQua7gkGgy6yEgB1gZozjeLGd3rDwvKIxfcY=; h=From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=kYAyZjF6ze3W+34fxDXkXyKaTp9sMiVYSahvzExb9Do4KaiLX96gLZnUU5QuVVylh lK+MnWkB3b/ZGn2Onq90likWSB5iqQOdoXh4ffOtfsD5vrwtdLYOhdCKZvM0X+mMGj 9XNTES0oryiIHCUrjZd91HdFmXuwxnPCs5UvfMqc=
From: "Benjamin M. Schwartz" <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abd052760e01db90140fa712bf3f8d18770e2655d392cf0000000115231b9a92a169ce0d78bf28@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/495/299241456@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/495@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/495@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Guidance for port number use (#495)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_590b599a65933_35443fa6ce9b5c30715f1"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: bemasc
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/8O49FdEja7Q6om2mQVmBrCcLit8>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 04 May 2017 16:41:01 -0000

> There are now quite a few protocols that rely on mapping from a name to a URL using .well-known, which wouldn't work for QUIC without a well-known port. In a way we would be strengthening our reliance on our fallback protocol if we insist on randomizing.

Could you give an example?  Most .well-known uses I know of already have a port in addition to the name.  Also, we could require SRV records when using QUIC in contexts where the port is unknown.

> it would be good to understand what perceived benefits derive from that. For someone looking to use other ports, more use of non-443 ports might be good, but it's rare that the need is "use a particular port number" as opposed to something else. Understanding what that something else might be would probably help.

Needs I perceive:
 * Run a server as non-root without making clients do something unusual and poorly supported.  IMHO, requiring privilege to run an HTTP server (on port 80 or 443) has been a nontrivial cause of vulnerabilities in low-budget webservers.  Running HTTP on other ports is possible, but is not well-supported by clients (e.g. users can't just type a domain name into a URL bar).
 * Do P2P QUIC without fighting network ossification.  P2P QUIC could be useful for WebRTC-like applications, which will necessarily run on high-numbered ports.  Keeping those flows identical to client-server QUIC would help us avoid the kind of ossification that required awful workarounds in WebRTC, like ssltcp and TURN-TLS candidates.
 * Multihosting QUIC on IPv4 without SNI.   Making the port a first-class component of any QUIC address would give CDNs the option to offer each customer an isolated 3-tuple (IP, UDP, port) for QUIC serving, avoiding reliance on SNI (at least in QUIC).

-- 
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/495#issuecomment-299241456