Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Server cannot proceed after invalid Retry token (#3396)
Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Mon, 27 January 2020 23:02 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 EF5903A0FF3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:02:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 Fg-DG7QO8qMA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:02:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-28.smtp.github.com (out-28.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A568C3A0FF2 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:02:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321198C002D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:02:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1580166166; bh=CxPH/H+rbXOLuu7YG47eLugyS+F2vZO51T5l2HdoejA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Cxz25AKSpf3PSS8tXD6b9zrD7ppVHPL5a6VjF/OsU8+etATnoa14SW5Z24XvJZHt7 XlBHXP2PdYdI9NM30JvjzKSc1Pc9ixhGEDGp5Woo3PL2rNnKhlLAgUbGmZ86ooPngy qY9fYD+/sai/swJ7/81+IEX20gZ+Jw2UOxcTVEYk=
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:02:46 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3UL74DT3PBVVOAV6N4HSPJNEVBNHHCCIN5SE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3396/578997412@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3396@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3396@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Server cannot proceed after invalid Retry token (#3396)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e2f6c162967a_51be3ff7a2acd968218077"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/_HJiX7HmchmJQKCYT-QIqBYYFl4>
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: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 23:02:49 -0000
> The problem with the "server MAY proceed" part is that there is no reasonable way for the server to do so. I am not sure if I agree. IIUC, the sentence suggests that a server can process the Initial packet and proceed the handshake as if that Initial packet did not have a token attached. That's at least possible technically (we do that occasionally for NEW_TOKEN tokens, right?). Whether if people would want to do that is a different question, but I think this behavior makes sense for deployments in which you'd have a retry middlebox occasionally installed (and uninstalled). -- 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/3396#issuecomment-578997412