Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Immediately close with INVALID_TOKEN (#3107)

Mike Bishop <> Thu, 24 October 2019 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03CB2120044 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 11:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5tLG3hx8yZcW for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 11:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7991120013 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 11:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB485520073 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 11:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571941833; bh=2LpmILPcgAGHlI0AB/ZzCjW4E9aIL+mMEihnXSdoljM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=y81n3PCstjByBHYV8WjVfIZ/2L/qd40CxE0oUzaiQ7WWjbI0wtv2plwNysxq/R9Su Tv4mx0SUlo+fA9SjG6NBcCW5vWJnKelC+CM+P4ei2NvKuJlvwsD1d06ApRKvYgzsFS BtBErxhtoiz9nFqAPGIIp0DtPQX2BUoNewfOw15w=
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 11:30:33 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3107/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Immediately close with INVALID_TOKEN (#3107)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db1edc9bc415_79503fa05f2cd96033687a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 18:30:37 -0000

MikeBishop commented on this pull request.

Depending how the server distinguishes them, a change of method / confusion about what server you're sending it to could make you appear to be presenting a Retry token instead of a regular token.  This error code enables the client to recover and retry quickly, but there's no language about what the client should do when it receives the code.

> @@ -1641,6 +1641,14 @@ of connection establishment.  By giving the client a different connection ID to
 use, a server can cause the connection to be routed to a server instance with
 more resources available for new connections.
+If a server receives a client Initial with a unverifiable Retry token,
+it knows the client will not accept another Retry token.  It can either
+proceed with the handshake without verifying the token or immediately close

I still think the requirement to make them distinguishable should be a MUST.  Otherwise, a change of token generation method could make an old NEW_TOKEN token appear to be an invalid Retry token.

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