Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify path validation and connection migration (#4102)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Fri, 18 September 2020 21:03 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 29ABE3A10EB for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.177
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.177 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.695, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, 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 5btQoPUcDc7D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-25.smtp.github.com (out-25.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0B0D3A10E6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-c5134a3.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-c5134a3.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.55]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D68D08407DF for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1600463014; bh=mQdSupNNgO/NpiKKzJHwDbskFPxjzrGn2OOYYJWiYtY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=MzXuOVOHMuSS2XgVDubApgGyyHgV/Tyy5f6RRR2PeHuE4Uh+kiuxmi9+KyU4Se0jW sfACoM7c6SSlOZZvvaMEGKAkyyg1mnD7jRbDpEp8QnUWKpzkJnE+HzMlQyEo3fUNJD ICfUnP62oj9SUQ06gJwH8z6J0UI5WfjRGthFFf5Q=
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:03:34 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3F6IPA7GFG7NWHSQV5OEA2NEVBNHHCTXOHHI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4102/review/491779641@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4102@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4102@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify path validation and connection migration (#4102)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f6520a6c7bf4_3bd19f0755d1"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/DbHwnSShvpUJfBt08cfTgoZmnq8>
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: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 21:03:37 -0000

@MikeBishop commented on this pull request.



> -An endpoint uses a new connection ID for probes sent from a new local address;
-see {{migration-linkability}} for further discussion. An endpoint that uses
-a new local address needs to ensure that at least one new connection ID is
-available at the peer. That can be achieved by including a NEW_CONNECTION_ID
-frame in the probe.

The first sentence is probably duplicative, but it leads into the second -- if the peer is to respond *on the same path*, they will need an extra CID, so bundling a NCID frame is a good idea.  (That's actually why NCID is allow in probing packets, IIRC.)  But on the other hand, the peer isn't required to respond on the same path any longer, so no harm done if omitted.

-- 
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/4102#discussion_r491189434