IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Pad path validation in both directions (#4241)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 20 October 2020 00:44 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 3EA1E3A12F8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 17:44:28 -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 cNYI9CZ-09MY for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 17:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3B5B3A12F7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 17:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-d385ed4.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.101.55]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4A2B86007A9 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 17:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1603154666; bh=x38RJubEUu2lOLE4wlMdQgwfJuFfCrwg3NqfRzQGM8s=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=njG0t4IQTstSF0MUm9qBMNiWI+UtkezeelnJvQninQpsMob69oqZF0qPw4rI69iAK iV5tf8SkC6a/kkDR69NgKCCBoEZU14GBUlKb6A12rYieb7shlsRvHxgbUbOVrbMTuW IpJV0caKasFPAiNIqmBkQfh09iMjC+2L+YdNYdN8=
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 17:44:26 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYC3AD6G36NMBHHG6N5TIJ6VEVBNHHCWKQC3Q@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4241/review/512253938@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4241@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4241@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Pad path validation in both directions (#4241)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f8e32ea460dc_5119b42288e5"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/LYFP5kxfL8DmxW9E6rBZ3yTlJYU>
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, 20 Oct 2020 00:44:28 -0000

@ianswett commented on this pull request.



>  frame unless constrained by congestion control.
 
+A PATH_RESPONSE frame SHOULD be sent on the network path where the
+PATH_CHALLENGE was received.  This ensures the path is functional in both
+directions.  This requirement MUST NOT be enforced by the endpoint that
+initiates path validation as that would enable an attack on migration; see
+{{off-path-forward}}.
+
+An endpoint SHOULD expand datagrams that contain a PATH_RESPONSE frame to at

I requested it be a SHOULD for two reasons:
 1) It's unenforceable, and unenforceable MUSTs are unfortunate.
 2) If we ever did multipath, it may make sense to send PATH_RESPONSE on a different path than the PATH_CHALLENGE, and a SHOULD makes that possible.

-- 
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/4241#discussion_r508142179

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email