IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Inconsistency regarding future protection of version negoitation (#3828)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Mon, 06 July 2020 09:22 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 2BE093A1262 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 02:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 3zVJ25GzLQ4b for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 02:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEDBA3A125F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 02:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-0eea13f.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-0eea13f.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.109.26]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C94660A51 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 02:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594027374; bh=KM5D63WWyROPK5MOs5fd0V43BLS17ezrOopylmfaZlQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=NwML/WLJ0/ruR/n67EAgP9c70RUw5wJ4nVJK6VZ6fXO6GN31JoaZNuTYMlOZ6+b90 WST0ngiyvkJVLh7aT2UrHZMMm4Ajh4PWkGNfG9bumevepnghVQW2VhRqAJuenAYs5P idlVRV/sBEup3RbGKpMaburBEjN6kiQj4HyLTas8=
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 02:22:54 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK47VQ62AMPI3EXVYOF5B3HG5EVBNHHCNUW7QU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3828/654119760@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3828@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3828@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Inconsistency regarding future protection of version negoitation (#3828)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f02ed6ed251b_40f93fb3d08cd96c52490"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/DUiklbmWsK-BBu6QKif6XDajLBs>
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, 06 Jul 2020 09:22:57 -0000

I don't think so.  The sentence here:

>  A specific QUIC version might authenticate the packet as part of its connection establishment process.

Implies that the version fields might be authenticated.  Indeed, the document says that they MUST be authenticated (somehow).

It doesn't say how.  However, this

> A Version Negotiation packet contains no other fields.

... means that it can't use any fields that are included in a Version Negotiation packet to do that.

If you look at the current proposal for [QUIC version negotiation](https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation), that uses transport parameters.

-- 
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/3828#issuecomment-654119760

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status