Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandate using a new connection ID on migration (#2413)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Mon, 04 February 2019 23:48 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 AB029129A87 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:48:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, 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_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 2XuSJq1z1trX for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:48:15 -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 965E71294FA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:48:15 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:48:14 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1549324094; bh=BOQiNftrCDEXXAZkcHWtFWrXp4etdDmksmPwX7Sv2WQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=vRmTNgxWZkYAaza2OTbOLCHnFubd1UGSVieBIzuasja0UVwTj6KyPrcn1F1qT7xtd /VfYxBellEOOyvJnnWyO0QEHjA2US0Uv3Lhy8CzqIXYUYUU5BV/WfSfV+3nygW7Ubd LsUUErS1zw9Cou3Pe0lJL2bSlIInvFHuVbXY1xg4=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab4de1ca5c18e3e3af9fc8e2d43ce940e52f83facd92cf000000011870913e92a169ce183ba2c6@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2413/460459352@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2413@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2413@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandate using a new connection ID on migration (#2413)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c58cf3e959f0_768d3fcba32d45c097163"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/Si51xKY-EoVwWb3_61eSBkXw-lk>
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, 04 Feb 2019 23:48:18 -0000

Thanks for finding that @erickinnear.  That supports the change being editorial-only.

As for the perceived conflict, yeah, the text is not ideal.  I'll find some way to reword it.  Perhaps by observing that you can never run out of zero-length connection IDs.

@igorlord, allowing a peer to exhaust connection IDs to maintain linkability across migrations is an attack that I'd rather we not have.

-- 
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/2413#issuecomment-460459352