Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Disallow reuse of stateless reset tokens (#2785)

Mike Bishop <> Thu, 13 June 2019 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087ED1201DA for <>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 11:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.391
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.391 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XxrkPbEElyTv for <>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 11:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A3DA1201D1 for <>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 11:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 11:00:31 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1560448831; bh=RElI2qNFIfOlcEEI7uu1rCKmdQ7lPTat7zgRTufU9xM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=RrGWWBOuOuFq6CN4CeC0j0hHPATv3echoEgeNYw9wLKBn4oe1GXkDew7FY16zGPZq e6PVQQFuQnjhbdm3mH7t5Cg1AVtPTcffnN+3QyZNMicEr78a1IQovUQWaWfQRKcLfE 0FJFsNivrPvvLhbVowUz7DijIBGIryl55ZgBF1ow=
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2785/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Disallow reuse of stateless reset tokens (#2785)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d028f3f106db_1983fc0f4ccd964102883"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 18:00:34 -0000

So essentially, we're saying that we maybe didn't really have consensus on the answer to #2732 being "yes."  But since there was a consensus call that said we did, now the question is whether we have consensus to reverse that decision?  Let me suggest that be taken to the list.

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