[quicwg/base-drafts] Is path validation a SHOULD or a MUST -- pick one! (#2580)

Igor Lubashev <notifications@github.com> Mon, 01 April 2019 12:15 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFAD6120113 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 05:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Xs6ao919MLh for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 05:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9DA812010C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 05:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 05:15:03 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1554120903; bh=QkxYu9Vo79U73a2zA1x4AfXoDMpSy0BNEHhkp2xr4hM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=CYO73YptLimcttnbucwQqTdNWLXHdoqQbQaJ1BduqmiYDC9fBJrLNHmnqgkvJ3CTl HnlGqX7Mw/X6f0si03uWL0RezjvQhHwdfwtnoScPLqFNZEwySnVqfYzqvsSsFXNj7l 3Rw8jpjamsyuNyjRKQeeYc38SkIP7WVPqQ54VmLk=
From: Igor Lubashev <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab98854c2e95498ad8f492192487c47cd9388001b892cf0000000118b9c2c792a169ce197dbe90@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2580@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is path validation a SHOULD or a MUST -- pick one! (#2580)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ca200c78c334_5263f7ed5ad45c4166364"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
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/AL4uLNH7GE93_Q4R7mGNcgyzS8M>
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, 01 Apr 2019 12:15:07 -0000

Section 9 (Connection Migration) says:

> [...] an endpoint SHOULD perform path validation (Section 8.2) if it detects a change in the IP address of its peer.

Section 9.2 (Responding to Connection Migration) says:

> In response to such a packet [a packet from a new peer address containing a non-probing frame], an endpoint MUST start sending subsequent packets to the new peer address and MUST initiate path validation (Section 8.2) to verify the peer’s ownership of the unvalidated address.


1. Is performing path validation (Section 8.2) a SHOULD or a MUST?  I would prefer "a MUST, unless the endpoint has other means validate the validate the new path"

2. If sending subsequent packets immediately a MUST?  Not even a "MUST after validation"?

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: