Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The method of identifying "the same server" (#3155)

Kazuho Oku <> Mon, 28 October 2019 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753E7120098 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 14:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x8vd9ounYvL0 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFC9B120096 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 14:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 14:49:15 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572299355; bh=uoxrDz48UlRTe2q0qB/KBx90hmzIM11DfrBIp4hPYNc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=V49drjrQdY0Uzdcwwahn4W8/iLWDe37zZAqo7gm4s5rlToTrmY689WyBLjkjMMsjr bIgq+Aselz0WgVilWwxPKZX78ZHSxfMKrzgBWK5VtUi9a/9r5BVdKKt8L7KNUvtyDi JU/JiCDbzIBqReVpRTWYFGhw3MB3rRsX+AmbWuIs=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3155/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The method of identifying "the same server" (#3155)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db7625bce178_63933f90986cd96028485"; 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
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 21:49:19 -0000

@nharper I think that is a performance concern rather than a security concern?

Assuming that it is the case where sending a token does not have any positive impact on performance, I think we might not need to care about that.

We could, but I think it would be hard to draw a line on when sending a NEW_TOKEN token can be considered beneficial enough..., and there is no negative performance impact on sending an unusable token.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: