[quicwg/base-drafts] Provide Signal that SCID is client assigned (#2838)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Mon, 24 June 2019 20:42 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 7D78C1200F1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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] 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 jEz4rErAYzPK for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
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 4840F120041 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:42:24 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1561408945; bh=Yq1uwJRH6ByFgyJornfrY4F3lOVo0ZmZFlHbdQgm8ts=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=F+R7L4vxxGMduZxh3dEzNuoNatuHLHaNJT1hWtIdevlc+xSyD4bGBNxCCNxlKu3xM R2dER36+liocKej2Hz0mbvRsFRigL5Rz7oMs1J97vWHqK0a9h7evz4ainTHZFZwpYZ HT9axPz/BG4Edp1CoBGxuZXXx/aiaknuvuZHHn0A=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK236G57JLHBG5L4NEN3DZUDBEVBNHHBW3C4Q4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2838@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Provide Signal that SCID is client assigned (#2838)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d1135b0ef61b_1f4d3f7dfdecd96033777e"; 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/SFtTYOj3Q15ZORsB5tXJGvLwy6o>
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: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:42:29 -0000

In QUIC v1 the first CID (OCID) is client assigned although most CID's are assigned by the authority controlling the receiving endpoint.

I propose to make it publicly visible via invariants which endpoint authored or authorized the CID. This obviously requires a change to invariants.

Such a signal could be single header bit similar to how long/short packets are identified.

It could be useful in resolving some LB issues with traffic routing in v1, but even if this is not used by v1, other QUIC versions might regret not having this signal.

Now, there is nothing in the invariants stating how CIDs are constructed, so by all means it could happen by a vote by the general british population. But, realistically, there are two endpoints and two responsible parties so it can be stated in invariants who authorized the CID even if it is unknown how or by whom.

It would require a change to invariants. But for the sanity of current and future QUIC versions, I believe it is important to know if a CID is assigned by client where a CID is normally assigned by the destinations authority.

See also discussion here: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2834

-- 
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/2838