Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] [Version Ossification] Alternative version and Initial Salt should be part of NEW_TOKEN (#3111)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

@ianswett 
> Aren't clients required to store transport parameters when doing resumption already, so this is moving it from one place they store to another?

That's a good point. I admit that the only one benefit of bundling the alternative version-salt is that the server can store and recover that from the token. That said, please let me reiterate that that is a huge benefit, as it provides the servers the capability of protecting the Initial packets from on-path intermediary in a cryptographically secure way.

Regarding if the alternative fields should be a mandatory field of a NEW_TOKEN frame, I think it's just about a matter of encoding. As I have stated in https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3111#issuecomment-543374390, a server that is not willing to do greasing (or Initial protection) can advertise version 1 and the Initial salt of version 1 in those fields.

-- 
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/3111#issuecomment-544781126