Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Authenticate connection IDs (#3499)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Sun, 22 March 2020 12:47 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 795F33A03F3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 05:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 EKfJZom3LgGM for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 05:47:05 -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 CF8FD3A02BD for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 05:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-943b171.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-943b171.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.22.59]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7780A01FD for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 05:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1584881223; bh=CakKTrRjKcwzOCu93JJZk7U0bXnE+YhAPeiUtQwUSwI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=GHthJgVcUBk+KEpjg3J0r2QmZo2C6BvVvmTRIGGYA96Kh5z6/ZRanh5DMqjjHte0J JAW2IYyNHheE0sru9rp8OPvYXQHS2sc5DTAAnxDdf/wZcDhP+l18704Ys55FItmX80 mdksVcH+n/IUSTpxh7IIXVzAIqdJjiP5blfcQbzA=
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 05:47:03 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4BE7BP57FKIIFK4LV4QM7UPEVBNHHCESD76A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3499/review/379001134@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3499@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3499@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Authenticate connection IDs (#3499)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e775e47b7098_11e43f877cecd9647258f1"; 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/Lx7Y_k9ijkY-3s1WvScNrP34844>
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: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 12:47:07 -0000

ianswett approved this pull request.

Some small nits, but this still LG.

I'd feel more confident in the text's completeness and correctness if a few implementations implemented it and achieved interop.  I don't anticipate any issues, but when we change the handshake, unanticipated new edge cases can be introduced.

> @@ -1475,6 +1475,48 @@ lifetime of a connection, especially in response to connection migration
 ({{migration}}); see {{issue-cid}} for details.
 
 
+## Authenticating Connection IDs {#cid-auth}
+
+The choice each endpoint makes about connection IDs during the handshake is
+authenticated by including all values in transport parameters; see
+{{transport-parameters}}. This ensures that all connection IDs are authenticated
+by the cryptographic handshake.
+
+Each endpoint includes the value of the Source Connection ID field from Initial
+packets it sends in the handshake_connection_id transport parameter; see

One could read that this Connection ID is only used on Initial packets.  If so, I think initial_connection_id would be a better TP name.  But I think this CID can be used used on Initial and 0-RTT from the client and all Initial, Handshake and 1-RTT from the server?

> +* absence of the handshake_connection_id transport parameter from either
+  endpoint,
+
+* absence of the original_connection_id transport parameter from the server,
+
+* absence of the retry_connection_id transport parameter from the server after
+  receiving a Retry packet,
+
+* presence of the retry_connection_id transport parameter when no Retry packet
+  was received, or
+
+* a mismatch between values received from a peer in these transport parameters
+  and the value sent in the corresponding Destination Connection ID fields of
+  Initial packets.
+
+If a zero-length connection IDs is selected, the corresponding transport

```suggestion
If a zero-length connection ID is selected, the corresponding transport
```

-- 
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/3499#pullrequestreview-379001134