[quicwg/base-drafts] Inconsistency regarding future protection of version negoitation (#3828)
Magnus Westerlund <notifications@github.com> Mon, 06 July 2020 08:37 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 6EBF33A11EF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 01:37:31 -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 Jxezkj0hivA1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 01:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-25.smtp.github.com (out-25.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25D503A11F0 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 01:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42195280F77 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 01:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594024649; bh=2mIbgmc2tCEjQJC0HSD79jJtl7FMuXFFL9OdDcCBSmI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=azys4XExrbo1b6eo0TO3ugGSgl4T3mOpXsr28JH9csnUsNkXBKQY067/acsb8tdmV dJgWmoxO2OUQ+xVDhKvjEJ3sOqyZBrz1QqFMXHcptyJs/62N/HrFaPqv/s+itZKl2I b2vmjAq+gE2ton+3yG8XQ8yXFy48+jjyfA7mxvO0=
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:37:29 -0700
From: Magnus Westerlund <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZMEZBJ6W6FH3LY7PN5B3B4TEVBNHHCNUW7QU@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@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Inconsistency regarding future protection of version negoitation (#3828)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f02e2c932c3d_488c3f7f7d6cd964143754"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gloinul
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/HrfdQaV8NE8Q2QQtCjD2Y89oPUY>
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 08:37:31 -0000
This is for -invariants-09:
Section 6 says:
Version Negotiation packets do not use integrity or confidentiality
protection. A specific QUIC version might authenticate the packet as
part of its connection establishment process.
Is the second not contradicting what is said in previous paragraph:
A Version Negotiation packet contains no other fields.
So to my understanding the authentication that the paragraph above talks about needs to be done in another QUIC packet, it can't be done in a QUIC packet that is Version Negotiation. Can this be made more explicit or do I misunderstand and can you then clarify why this is not a contradiction?
--
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
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Inconsistency regarding futu… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Inconsistency regarding … Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Inconsistency regarding … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Inconsistency regarding … Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Inconsistency regarding … Martin Thomson