Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify the state a client stores with a token (#3150)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Tue, 17 December 2019 05:16 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 4B01C120098 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 21:16:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 X_3P1LmlMYUe for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 21:16:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4D44120059 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 21:16:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-5825cd4.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-5825cd4.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.22.68]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E8EA0064 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 21:16:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1576559772; bh=KkxAuZbkNkhQk00AySOS1/mg3efG7kNvVDt30apfkHU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ESe+4BRRwvCn7rpSaqe6EhaDsBMPYw9S10KskNuP5m0VijAjzNGbzO17FxzvQvE+D TOvOfn/o3Ma6nPvwqXe28Pzt6UdDeg1wBbq5Uy95EnW/zbAUcmQHCVXoE5y5mirDok MMCyYT31SOJecc8lyq5xUuclenoKC92N25Ul7+V0=
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 21:16:12 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK53KWYZMNOOIA3SLV54AWLRZEVBNHHB5B4MBE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3150/review/333028995@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3150@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3150@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify the state a client stores with a token (#3150)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5df8649c3a25_4713fa3648cd95c2998c"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/D-zt3NEMFWb10ABhkAzsu_fxojA>
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: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 05:16:14 -0000

kazuho commented on this pull request.

I have some editiorial comments, but the design looks fine to me.

While we might embed some information related to 0-RTT configuration in QUIC tokens, they would be decryptable and be usable, so we do not think there would be a problem for us (thanks to @martinthomson for checking).

> @@ -1741,7 +1741,8 @@ its Initial packet.  Including a token might allow the server to validate the
 client address without an additional round trip.  A client MUST NOT include a
 token that is not applicable to the server that it is connecting to, unless the
 client has the knowledge that the server that issued the token and the server
-the client is connecting to are jointly managing the tokens.
+the client is connecting to are jointly managing the tokens.  A client MAY use a
+token from any previous connection to that server.

Maybe this sentence can be subsumed by the first sentence of the same paragraph that discusses the applicability of the token?

> @@ -1792,6 +1793,12 @@ able to reuse a token.  To avoid attacks that exploit this property, a server
 can limit its use of tokens to only the information needed to validate client
 addresses.
 
+Clients MAY use tokens obtained on one connection for any connection attempt
+using the same version.  When selecting a token to use, clients do not need to

It might be better to say: _using the same "QUIC" version_.

Also, I think it might be a good idea to gather the discussion about applicability to one place. At the moment this PR scatters that to three places: one being the change above (and the first sentence of that paragraph, which already exists), and the provisions being added here.

-- 
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/pull/3150#pullrequestreview-333028995