Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] What needs to be checked for address validation (#3327)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 12 February 2020 01:20 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 E889012085D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:20:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 Nl-nogMaiHR2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4093120086 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:20:13 -0800 (PST)
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 93C5A660C24 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:20:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1581470412; bh=j+FearRvkBuyR2rbfS/QsH+5zBK6e2J+7PiqhVTjRPw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=bIVgn6VvtIiPn54lDsY+ybhxwRbSm8NLiD7Ascs9VtChG0O48NCrqKPrlzmOyp7QE PJi3qtHSEjFVFcWfZLddy7fAfo9gGlnIpYFaeHPyWxebTgX0UNaFPfs0l1MLBFeEue ZEARB81LxnqyqiVKlbmQWjqNrgQKsPZ4JCLhfvUg=
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:20:12 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK57WSJCDXJMEGWAOGN4KCCUZEVBNHHCBFKYSE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3327/review/357132605@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3327@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3327@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] What needs to be checked for address validation (#3327)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e4352cc83e6f_67cd3ffab58cd968103663"; 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/RiNhnmGaJ4HfujYF3zKzeHCzAJY>
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 Feb 2020 01:20:16 -0000

kazuho commented on this pull request.

@martinthomson Thank you for the ping. LGTM modulo the point below.

> @@ -1829,10 +1829,21 @@ tokens that would be accepted by the server.  Only the server requires access to
 the integrity protection key for tokens.
 
 There is no need for a single well-defined format for the token because the
-server that generates the token also consumes it.  A token could include
-information about the claimed client address (IP and port), a timestamp, and any
-other supplementary information the server will need to validate the token in
-the future.
+server that generates the token also consumes it.  Tokens sent in Retry packets
+SHOULD include information that allows the server to verify that the source IP
+address and port in client packets remains constant.
+
+Servers might use tokens from NEW_TOKEN in deciding not to send a Retry packet,
+even if the client address has changed.  A token that was provided in
+NEW_TOKEN cannot be used for address validation if the client address is not the
+same, though servers MAY allow for the possibility of changes arising from new
+mappings at a NAT.

Would it make sense to change "though..." to something like: "unless the server can assume that the address change happened within the same network (e.g., NAT rebinding)."?

The reason I suggest this change is because client address might change due to reasons other than NAT, for example, DHCP or SLAAC.

-- 
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/3327#pullrequestreview-357132605