From nobody Wed Mar 4 19:01:53 2020 Return-Path: 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 AC10A3A09AF for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 19:01:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 O7wI9suYJ2nM for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 19:01:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 057AC3A09AC for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 19:01:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from github-lowworker-f62aa54.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f62aa54.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.68]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E133A2C0F6E for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 19:01:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1583377308; bh=0Ds2LgQMskGACJvEpsUXCly4GbUFZGHfKPdgSaYRhKE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=keCF+q0bE1w3eSnonoXo7j8vT/5JtCv/GofuMDbjDIy3KyQdhVm10SDdwdP+fyLUS KxL8hCutsgTKk/+ROCbdDByOyHCfXWqmVcNv1CpQ8hG4gZ4kpEevHjBWniJxjE5MQH q+9B0SxZNTVbcRaaRRBKt4ZwD7VtADY7csQqzRT0= Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 19:01:48 -0800 From: Martin Thomson Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts To: quicwg/base-drafts Cc: Subscribed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Authenticating connection IDs (#3439) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e606b9cd43de_48873fa9200cd95c24276b"; 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: X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org 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: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 03:01:52 -0000 ----==_mimepart_5e606b9cd43de_48873fa9200cd95c24276b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit @DavidSchinazi suggests that allowing the server to copy the client's ODCID when it is not sending a Retry would speed Google deployment. I think that is a reasonable request, but it does complicate things. I'd like to hear about that. @marten-seemann suggests that forcing a change of connection ID at the server (always? only when there is no Retry?) would be sufficient because all an endpoint needs to do is ensure that the choice they made is retained. I would like to see what @ad-l thinks of that. (I will also take this to the list, but here I get to at-mention people :) -- 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/3439#issuecomment-595003696 ----==_mimepart_5e606b9cd43de_48873fa9200cd95c24276b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

@DavidSchinazi suggests that allowing the server to copy the client's ODCID when it is not sending a Retry would speed Google deployment. I think that is a reasonable request, but it does complicate things. I'd like to hear about that.

@marten-seemann suggests that forcing a change of connection ID at the server (always? only when there is no Retry?) would be sufficient because all an endpoint needs to do is ensure that the choice they made is retained. I would like to see what @ad-l thinks of that.

(I will also take this to the list, but here I get to at-mention people :)

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

----==_mimepart_5e606b9cd43de_48873fa9200cd95c24276b--