IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make SERVER_BUSY more generic (#3709)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Tue, 02 June 2020 01:37 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 8C89D3A07E0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 18:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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_24=1.618, 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 D8HLXce3-GMv for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 18:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41BC83A07DB for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 18:37:43 -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 345ECA10FA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 18:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1591061862; bh=WXvKqofIsmEhu3pWjZyT3CScmg3RNqqQ+0yWG55bwiQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=13FPYZqvLrAte54Sd2pB5OzkiTRC2/vVhzcpYQ9jQfy4JCGwhUW8Inu6KmF9sSHqw XkkyVpQoI3XIQtkcIghkgSxuLVKjMWjwUu2Juq45xutZc9utXWEdLd7rQHaqyccBnq Ra2+mrc6IOwI/tTAZjYo/dS85fkdEQ2CeVLm2m1s=
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 18:37:42 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYZ3KQQZ3KCWEESSA544GHGNEVBNHHCK6V3Z4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3709/637215978@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3709@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3709@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make SERVER_BUSY more generic (#3709)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ed5ad6623fbe_3f253fbbbf0cd9649962a"; 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/JhRgZKSOyElcLIdsHqZlNuX8XrI>
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 01:37:45 -0000

+1 to retaining the current state.

I'm repeating my comment on #3694, but when QUIC is used as the only transport protocol (rather than with happy-eyeballing), it has to be resilient to MITM attacks as TLS over TCP is.

TLS over TCP does not have an unauthenticated error code that tells the client to stop trying to connecting to the server. We cannot have such thing in QUIC, because if we do, QUIC becomes more prone to MITM attacker than TLS over TCP is.

CONNECTION_REFUSED is fine in this respect, because it does not indicate to the client what the reason was. But error codes like SERVER_BUSY or TRY_LATER would have the implications that we cannot have.

-- 
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/3709#issuecomment-637215978

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email