Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Describe the mechanism for stateless reject (#60)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Mon, 05 December 2016 20:53 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 02D7E129D30 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 12:53:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.019
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.019 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_32=0.001, 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 YAFWFXuhoD9t for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 12:53:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2-ext5.iad.github.net [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 50CE4129D28 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 12:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 12:53:20 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1480971200; bh=iBNdsIvji7+3bd5DdK2sFkfXqdKpYT6Z93dDAAzkC04=; h=From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=C3Xm/9Nll0rgORU66z8zd5SNZx+WpL9lXMzOMPf4ctEnP8JbRqePlCUhBlhefkgBx 8kWE6zABK0Z35hOPZWbYSqyd+xoyMJWd6r8j39waY36YACohrcSqLDEHDl2v2sPS+s wTFXSUwhV0VipsK6WInesGTWVPLaVUOHmH06tE4I=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/60/264973826@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/60@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/60@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Describe the mechanism for stateless reject (#60)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5845d3c0254f4_55523fa67eacf1348762bd"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/AJSYpV6-nvTlXdQPUWTm7cZHXxc>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abe353a657be7eafbca09540f549b3256544b2639592cf00000001145d95c092a169ce0b80dc35@reply.github.com>
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, 05 Dec 2016 20:53:27 -0000

This needs to be described in detail, but if the entire client hello is received, then TLS or the QUIC stack should be able to determine if the handshake can be completed or not.  If it can't, either because the TLS handshake doesn't complete or the source address token(in the QUIC extension), then an appropriate reject can be sent so it can complete next time.

This issue somewhat spans the TLS and transport docs, so I'm not sure where it belongs.

How would #35 help this?

-- 
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/60#issuecomment-264973826