Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Strengthen 2119 language around tokens. (#2124)

Mike Bishop <> Wed, 12 December 2018 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E36EC130E51 for <>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:45:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.056
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.056 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 HnwVSbzhTKdC for <>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:45:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 183F21277BB for <>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:45:23 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:45:22 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1544636722; bh=d4rs4EMu0Ama10OjS1u1VhNF9ZQ9OSFeT2fpH2kZJK0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=zu22bymhyNzXfrFSg7Qg5S//8FUIvb/Rrdih2zCNlUlCN6dA8Q++8wt/8bMObViD8 at9xWetmn9Rv8lfB3QRvA6PJQR7SyKUxO78fefJC7xTc89vdkPjzijMq4XnaJaojax GLSrCtAEgo9WwWE6WHKxEOlQUeNAlRY9l9PpJvWo=
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2124/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Strengthen 2119 language around tokens. (#2124)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c11493241714_62303fa7e44d45c4175457"; 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: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 17:45:25 -0000

MikeBishop commented on this pull request.

> @@ -1627,7 +1627,7 @@ interface.  A client needs to start the connection process over if it migrates
 prior to completing the handshake.
 When a server receives an Initial packet with an address validation token, it
-SHOULD attempt to validate it, unless it has already completed address
+MUST attempt to validate it, unless it has already completed address

Let's go back to 2119 definitions:  Are there situations in which a server might choose not to validate?  Will a failure to validate cause an interoperability problem?

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