Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify that unlinkability is required for NEW_TOKEN tokens. Changes … (#2647)

MikkelFJ <> Wed, 24 April 2019 05:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD48E120150 for <>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 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_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 PU2pduSZfq5m for <>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D43DA12002E for <>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:57:08 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1556085428; bh=EAnKejmZ+MXPhGMuAF5zbCtRaAICTfRNbg9MgZv3h0o=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=biGR2/veVb5QzIChDPG4ZWH0Y3isfjgB+LoBCV5dJGC7mU8eEYVrs7gAoVTOmJyVt Zu4yPCFgtqOpzVimFFLW803PuNn5E8wc3t9VAg84FsBYerFpMWFh3ughq1VxFhXa8H EsUobHUszSSXS9WiZ23TSNnCOfZsjWAtMqNw7pBk=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2647/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_[quicwg/base-drafts]_Clarify_that_unlinkability_is?= =?UTF-8?Q?_required_for_NEW=5FTOKEN_tokens._Changes_=E2=80=A6_=28#2647=29?=
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cbffab4bf2e5_30223f9331ccd96465223f"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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, 24 Apr 2019 05:57:12 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.

>  A token SHOULD be constructed for the server to easily distinguish it from
 tokens that are sent in Retry packets as they are carried in the same field.
+The token SHOULD NOT expose linkability; i.e., information that lets observers
+correlate the connection that is using the token and the one that issued the
+Unlike the token that is created for a Retry packet, there might be some time
+between when the token is created and when the token is subsequently used.
+Thus, a token SHOULD have an expiration time, which could be either an explicit
+expiration time or an issued timestamp that can be used to dynamically calculate
+the expiration time.  A server can retain the expiration time in the server-side
+store, or embed the encrypted value in the token.  It is unlikely that the
+client port number is the same on two different connections; validating the port
+is therefore unlikely to be successful.

The client port can easily be the same on two different connections in a server p2p configuration, or just in a reverse proxy connection.

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