Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify path validation and connection migration (#4102)

David Schinazi <notifications@github.com> Wed, 16 September 2020 22:55 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 EE7513A12C2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 15:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.695, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 Qdh4Y0Bt9D0V for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 15:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-28.smtp.github.com (out-28.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09B6B3A12B9 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 15:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11CEE9007F5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 15:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1600296927; bh=2cMfcW8EFsxo9XBowxsRjjdl/NK54D738mgNgIhxf5g=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=doXPzDUH1AG49wOejcb0MIm5xsZwCG/+v92iEsoLivLGltL2Emte0KL9QfinCdq9H YLtuFltcM9Sb6JWjJHtoSQFwV+VBZEVKf3zm64msT0jTga+bClWz2eTKEsSckZTO6G qb/wK1dU5jqD2y9Nomv1B9I5kAJ2/MDY6arP5yGg=
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 15:55:27 -0700
From: David Schinazi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZBPCRCUCH5PHRYBNF5NZ4N5EVBNHHCTXOHHI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4102/review/490069491@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4102@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4102@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify path validation and connection migration (#4102)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f6297dfc9c_670519f0102148"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
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/Tnzk1Q32ZseeKXVSU9wVs6iRXwQ>
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, 16 Sep 2020 22:55:30 -0000

@DavidSchinazi commented on this pull request.

Overall I think this PR clarifies thing (and is purely editorial). I've added some minor comments inline.

> +entropy and might be spoofed. No method is provided to establish return
+reachability, as endpoints independently determine reachability on each
+direction of a path.

I found `No method is provided to establish return reachability` confusing. How about:

```suggestion
entropy and might be spoofed. Endpoints independently determine reachability
on each direction of a path, and therefore return reachability can only be
established by the peer.
```

> +peer. Path validation ensures that packets received from a migrating peer do
+not carry a spoofed source address.

I personally found `is used to ensure` clearer than `ensures`

```suggestion
peer. Path validation is used to ensure that packets received
from a migrating peer do not carry a spoofed source address.
```

> @@ -2152,35 +2155,40 @@ receive packets without first having sent a packet on that path. Effective NAT
 traversal needs additional synchronization mechanisms that are not provided
 here.
 
-An endpoint MAY include PATH_CHALLENGE and PATH_RESPONSE frames that are used
-for path validation with other frames.  In particular, an endpoint can pad a
-packet carrying a PATH_CHALLENGE for Path Maximum Transfer Unit (PMTU)
-discovery (see {{pmtud}}), or an endpoint can include a PATH_RESPONSE with its
-own PATH_CHALLENGE.
+An endpoint MAY include other frames with the PATH_CHALLENGE and PATH_RESPONSE
+frames used for path validation.  In particular, an endpoint can include
+PADDING with a PATH_CHALLENGE for Path Maximum Transfer Unit (PMTU) discovery
+(see {{pmtud}}), and/or include a PATH_RESPONSE with its own PATH_CHALLENGE.

This last bit sounded backwards to me in the original text. I think as a server I expect to commonly receive an unprompted PATH_CHALLENGE, and will therefore have to send PATH_RESPONSE. The performance optimization is to include a PATH_CHALLENGE with that PATH_RESPONSE, not the other way around.

```suggestion
(see {{pmtud}}), and/or include a PATH_CHALLENGE with its own PATH_RESPONSE.
```

>  
 When probing a new path, an endpoint might want to ensure that its peer has an
 unused connection ID available for responses. The endpoint can send
 NEW_CONNECTION_ID and PATH_CHALLENGE frames in the same packet. This ensures
 that an unused connection ID will be available to the peer when sending a
 response.
 
+The number of new paths an endpoint can probe is limited by the number of
+extra Connection IDs the peer has previously supplied.

I would add the following clarification:

```suggestion
extra Connection IDs the peer has previously supplied. Supplying a peer with enough
Connection IDs allows it to simultaneously probe multiple paths.
```

>  In response to such a packet, an endpoint MUST start sending subsequent packets
 to the new peer address and MUST initiate path validation ({{migrate-validate}})
-to verify the peer's ownership of the unvalidated address.
+to verify the peer's ownership of the address if it has not already.

This sounds backwards to me. Don't we need to validate the path *before* sending all subsequent packets on it?

How about:

```
In response to such a packet, an endpoint MUST initiate path validation ({{migrate-validate}})
to verify the peer's ownership of the address if it has not already. Once the address is
validated, the endpoint MUST start sending subsequent packets to the new peer address.
```

(sorry the GitHub suggestion UI seems to have choked on this one)

-- 
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/4102#pullrequestreview-490069491