Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify the state a client stores with a token (#3150)

Nick Harper <> Thu, 24 October 2019 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9DC1120099 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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 i7I7vPdXV8ES for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8F13120073 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:17:22 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571955443; bh=yO6a3g071UC49ubaQdg/pA2X7gWQ6CiJHM5IW1jVDN4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=FaK1MzkwS3ioy0rQQ8NJXHCtKQjCiNlmraVUgZB9n3b/vEo0sKds0CrOr5m263bN5 fgSBoIzIRpQiYQZmi0cnG00r7BpseCTSxBJD6c0Yz70jJ7IrLcJdTilUt+NiV+vx2N h1/FBoFJ3ImZ7wgLmB089kdfTnYs6Pde2+kIjpcc=
From: Nick Harper <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3150/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify the state a client stores with a token (#3150)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db222f2efa52_12d3fca20ecd9648889e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nharper
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 22:17:26 -0000

nharper commented on this pull request.

> @@ -1697,7 +1697,8 @@ connections; validating the port is therefore unlikely to be successful.
 If the client has a token received in a NEW_TOKEN frame on a previous connection
 to what it believes to be the same server, it SHOULD include that value in the
 Token field of its Initial packet.  Including a token might allow the server to
-validate the client address without an additional round trip.
+validate the client address without an additional round trip.  A client MAY use
+a token from any previous connection to that server.

3 paragraphs down ("Clients might receive multiple tokens on a single connection") mentions that older tokens might become invalid and that clients should send the most recent unused token. I think that covers your question.

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