Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] [Version Ossification] Alternative version and Initial Salt should be part of NEW_TOKEN (#3111)

Mike Bishop <> Mon, 28 October 2019 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B6FC120091 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_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] 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 YW5YulR95GSU for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8732A120024 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28E491210A2 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572296370; bh=eZ+s1QL2CU6kD8kXRV6J+xxar6MihIL0yxDmlmB0f00=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Q7yU2tKjTO+0o+EiXKOwdTl3L463w7bqJdGo15mnCbUq0BWi+px1wrz29vKTowMlI NaRR565+UX5hTQKGFzK6ono2UDE804mJFmcEp9FFXfWZW8+83gH66lXbg5Yj7HSkWv X4MVye8IQ/roHMqZ5hs6lcHcmjgsllVTfe+RveWs=
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:59:29 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3111/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] [Version Ossification] Alternative version and Initial Salt should be part of NEW_TOKEN (#3111)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db756b1d8a83_6f2a3f9f390cd95c4363d7"; 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: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 20:59:32 -0000

The ability to cryptographically secure Initials is extremely compelling.  The base version is tricky -- the obvious answer is that it's the version you're speaking now, but that might complicate our upgrade story.  We're getting to the point where we need a sane outline of the answer to "How does a client discover that it and the server both speak a higher/better version of QUIC than the one currently being used?" even if we leave the details for later.

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