IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Equivalence of preferred_address and NEW_CONNECTION_ID (#3560)

David Schinazi <notifications@github.com> Thu, 09 April 2020 02:30 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 C5D913A045E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 19:30:18 -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 6mpJYOLeB2Ei for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 19:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-25.smtp.github.com (out-25.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78CC83A045B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 19:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743BF282021 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 19:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1586399416; bh=JANiebsAQKiiH9DPttDEg51mEKXoQSOAeGulkI/SZOo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=g58a8CZqESXwq+WGmPLItm+OWNm3zpzknsThfKlgL2lMFbAF2BF1V5YKD3ojKac1b runpOrGYUkGfRlZvHQ3VrZ2om9qyBmxmZV2DYsft3LyFduDPRNkhLsK+5n/KxiMrbE AyUnts7rDGmyXR1rMhKmdMznbb1j7yoKyTOy2XNE=
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 19:30:16 -0700
From: David Schinazi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4QAMNW6RKHQZQ7Y254TJU3REVBNHHCGNJIQI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3560/611293114@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3560@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3560@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Equivalence of preferred_address and NEW_CONNECTION_ID (#3560)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e8e88b863f4f_6a223fd424acd964274144"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
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/9c27vSP_JXmlozJ3dAAdnlA8jKs>
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: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 02:30:19 -0000

What's the point of including a connection ID (and stateless reset token) in the `preferred_address` transport parameter if that CID isn't tied to the preferred address in any way? At that point might as well remove that CID entirely and rely on NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames. My understanding was that the reason for there being a CID in the `preferred_address` TP was specifically to make that CID special. Would it make sense to just say that this CID MUST NOT be used when sending to the handshake server IP?

-- 
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/3560#issuecomment-611293114

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email