IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC connection migration and IPv6 only NAT64/DNS64 Networks (#2122)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Wed, 12 December 2018 15:11 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 C42921271FF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:11:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.056
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.056 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 C7wd6QbG6gvc for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:11:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63ED1127133 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:11:02 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:11:01 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1544627461; bh=+/WUcWnmbCXuNdtGrYol9ocVpIgiHdd3/cfcjNfYGV8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=PKOHbMbH5cdXfLAK/HVP/aCa9pYKwT0bPr2jS68GI7P44uVXZ0aaDwky3OJTqeK7U 5LiDqF547lEynh2bAQ9hBw0tZBtxtvANHGUY3fPSWgshnbk42YEGBziX0MK+jeB2Qv ZhkqbqsvvoDLAAMOnqNRrqWPKDy6Fqr7hwiYhEVI=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abe65d3342a8d02d4329170cbfaeb6e133098983e992cf000000011828e70592a169ce1742d117@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2122/446621471@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2122@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2122@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC connection migration and IPv6 only NAT64/DNS64 Networks (#2122)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c11250567057_13653fccc52d45c022011e"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/PxLZUIkLRxAvsyWH_EDTVmyaz6w>
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, 12 Dec 2018 15:11:09 -0000

> I was implying these frames to be sent post handshake, encrypted and protected and not exposing anything in the TLS handshake itself.

Not arguing on that, just suggesting that address lookup can have a much broader scope and when a single QUIC endpoint starts acting a bit like a DNS perhaps that scope should be taken into account. But certainly not for v1.

-- 
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/2122#issuecomment-446621471

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email