Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can Initial/0-RTT CIDs safely be used for routing? (#2026)

MikkelFJ <> Tue, 20 November 2018 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F56612D4EF for <>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:35:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.47
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 6HW6crSEQM3t for <>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:35:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2074A12785F for <>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:35:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:35:46 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1542746146; bh=vOtxKKlDyDJHcmYE3uNdBXWvTfqn6mowHoXa60DAzYg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Y0Azqf+UXbjz31VqlISa3mS+fnKmXybjS3xEV5tDXbfvXE8GFyHVBzKtDnYBAqmHO xDRlJ7iGu2R5DRpi3hZ9tOHf5Mm8nC8gy+iXrTHaX0Ef979gfmKC5XMaBaO+uV/axj ZJP9p1bJr8gysvFkV17yUgHNDM0VB+bgG+3HY9aw=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2026/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can Initial/0-RTT CIDs safely be used for routing? (#2026)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bf470223ad54_382d3fa8bf2d45b819237c"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:35:49 -0000

I tend to agree with Ian, but an Initial that follows a stateless reset would have to be routed consistently. I assume this reset driven routing cannot (trivially) be abused due to integrity checks in the reset, but I don't recall the details.

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