Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] NEW_TOKEN token and encryption (#2543)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Tue, 16 April 2019 09:54 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 F2633120496 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 02:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 m_vnEN7GMjON for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 02:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96495120481 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 02:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 02:54:15 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1555408455; bh=dL3ZSdzygD5EVbwuwoTIZzM7zerEIZO5BaeIBCactOo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Yy/1yi6B/ZzhscdZ8yuMFw7yggNRRkUT6MgpHl4ohAtEidKtctebB4z3Fzhz5ND83 5y2Wzqm3OoOP7j/oRBuaZ9T4yAz9SW3ILHjoI+D+q6pYzlIub9Tc40W3oKJV97PdmU +tHPpNUXO9dwSYVqOuSErDrKLGPEfjTo6Hben/vs=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab4e807fa63f642322c6caa762b323eeb96439fe5792cebac2d8c792a169ce1944c3bc@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2543/483592677@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2543@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2543@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] NEW_TOKEN token and encryption (#2543)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cb5a6478d052_41843faa742d45c05513d"; 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/b4iFUWAj-88a6Ss_Dm29YmAO3z0>
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: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 09:54:18 -0000

@kirsey 
>  I miss the point, that the server SHOULD NOT construct the same token multiple times because this leads to additional scenarios where tracking by a network observer becomes feasible. The referenced PR does not fix this problem.

I think we are in agreement that unlinkability between tokens are required. IMO the phrase "SHOULD NOT expose linkability" in the proposed text captures the concept, though I might agree that "i.e., ..." needs improvement.

-- 
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/2543#issuecomment-483592677