Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Immediately close with INVALID_TOKEN (#3107)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Thu, 14 November 2019 09:35 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 66490120043 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 01:35:26 -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 HLD6lLX1vwJT for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 01:35:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5094F1200A1 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 01:35:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.19.54]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B1F2960358 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 01:35:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1573724111; bh=DIE4XGaWdPrtGduADLFf1eXCxceq7bMTzPtqFTPhmgU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=IuLWQAL0WCByebtGFiySUd9AGcOq1N/GkvgfqHH23rHlf2e+huyHsd/gZ0d/QQKq2 Vm+/tAdWbccTiNCG+B7z4aV2gU0kq6w6XuQQIRJrtYjwXufFCEW1qQspo8HkehhuGB 5Zsws+NT3QEFzVuQ8oyffOQAkIhpQgztjWfOzT3M=
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 01:35:11 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYF6SJPRHTVSQMZPH533JJE7EVBNHHB4ST4NM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3107/review/316816546@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3107@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3107@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Immediately close with INVALID_TOKEN (#3107)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dcd1fcf1cc19_69eb3fce6d2cd960209861"; 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/G_oCN-HYV5ZA5SXMHHDDT0khOiM>
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 09:35:26 -0000

kazuho approved this pull request.

Rereading the changes, I have the following editorial suggestion.

> @@ -1641,6 +1641,17 @@ of connection establishment.  By giving the client a different connection ID to
 use, a server can cause the connection to be routed to a server instance with
 more resources available for new connections.
 
+If a server receives a client Initial that can be unprotected but contains an
+invalid Retry token, it knows the client will not accept another Retry token.
+The server can discard such a packet and allow the client to time out to
+detect handshake failure, but that could impose a significant latency penalty on
+the client.  A server MAY proceed with the connection without verifying the
+token, though the server MUST NOT consider the client address validated.  If a
+server chooses not to proceed with the handshake, it SHOULD immediately close
+({{immediate-close}}) the connection with an INVALID_TOKEN error.  Note that a
+server has not established any state for the connection at this point and so
+does not enter the closing period.

Would it make sense to change the last two sentences to something like: _If a server chooses not to proceed with the handshake, it SHOULD immediately send a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame with an INVALID_TOKEN error without creating any state. As the server does not establish any state for the connection, it does not enter the closing period ({{immediate-close}})._

Current text is confusing as the normative text suggests following the rule in {{immediate-close}}, then argues *as if it is a fact* that a server would not be retaining any state, even though what we want to do here is to *recommend* the server to send CONNECTION_CLOSE in a stateless manner.

-- 
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/3107#pullrequestreview-316816546