Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction between token types (#3128)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Tue, 22 October 2019 03:08 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 B9BDD120AED for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 20:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.998 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 VDA6ZQZ71xTZ for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 20:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAE4412000F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 20:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-292e294.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-292e294.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.102.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288B7C60481 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 20:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1571713714; bh=BlH/CUfjm9/NNKXtsAN4TphT+t76TEbSrY556FLsv+0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=hfYjKPhTnjF5H02iKMdCuuAqNNLgx5Pj1Ky/TCBGZH9WLLZgUPaFqvDMgrlUbHRQQ 2ir4KzYf4EsTHU2ATa1seIoxd0n4CQd0x6SZpeCe+IaTbA1bFpRde4xhpNJZ1PpsFq g6uxzwWVnVmABIvee6L7dTGVPf3HJvxqHEcp3E+E=
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 20:08:34 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYJVG3XJ3SPTWQQ42N3XOSTFEVBNHHB43A2P4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3128/review/304946898@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3128@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3128@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction between token types (#3128)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dae72b21a2f6_53ef3fa40cccd96467738"; 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/MzS5XVH5IVGQRmNgwXJ7zadarHc>
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, 22 Oct 2019 03:08:37 -0000

kazuho commented on this pull request.

> Question for reviewers: do you think it necessary to point out that this distinction doesn't need to be hidden from other entities?

Yes, I think doing so would help people understand the text. At the moment, in [section 8.1.1](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#rfc.section.8.1.1) we merely imply that a Retry token can be in cleartext. It is easy to miss that the bit used for the distinction can be in clear.

> @@ -1675,9 +1675,10 @@ one.  The client MUST NOT use the token provided in a Retry for future
 connections. Servers MAY discard any Initial packet that does not carry the
 expected token.
 
-A token SHOULD be constructed in a way that allows the server to distinguish it
-from tokens that are sent in Retry packets as they are carried in the same
-field.
+A token send in NEW_TOKEN frames MUST be constructed in a way that allows the

s/A token send/A token being sent/?

-- 
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/3128#pullrequestreview-304946898