Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Equivalence of preferred_address and NEW_CONNECTION_ID (#3560)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 01 April 2020 04:44 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 854D33A0A14 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.082
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.082 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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=1.282, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 iycf-gBAZMkG for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-11.smtp.github.com (out-11.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E8483A0A13 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-1dbcc59.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-1dbcc59.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.105.54]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF332616D4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1585716294; bh=mmKs0D+KuFN+keI3jki9LYzgrI1mJY4I3xN4wLn2mrY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=A1kEy6SH7Qb0nMh2RFeMSuHwgFjhT+Xaav6Pm1EPL6Ynt+CxHol+fl8CUbgd1AVDh +Rzt0U0UlRDSZi3m/N+PUKXJDrDZP1ZC4PJ4KUjPCTePA2z6r4p/7qrMHYU1VSWrv0 /BinYiko0Wsrd9MscVGBGtqnr+H+23ZVlCLD7UqQ=
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:44:54 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYUHMUEQKUL2Y34TTN4R76UNEVBNHHCGNJIQI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3560/607028938@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3560@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3560@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Equivalence of preferred_address and NEW_CONNECTION_ID (#3560)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e841c4685a71_24583fc1fbecd96420664b"; 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/NOprd4huOErMxG1lN3xzk2Y6HH0>
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: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 04:44:57 -0000

@martinthomson My personal take would be that people would not do that. When a client migrates to the preferred address, there's fair chance that the client's address tuple will change. That means that the server should be capable of receiving short header packets with 0-byte CID from any address, and determine that the packet belongs to the connection that is migrating to the preferred address.

That's possible theoretically, but in practice ...

I agree that a server might want to switch to zero-byte CID _after_ migration to SPA completes. But to do that, we need a NEW_CONNECTION_ID that can carry a zero-byte CID, which is forbidden at the moment. I do not think we'd want to change the spec now to allow that.

-- 
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/3560#issuecomment-607028938