[quicwg/base-drafts] PATH_RESPONSE isn't path-tied (#3797)
Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Tue, 30 June 2020 21:06 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 188F63A08E2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 fRUN7R2_cWnr for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-27.smtp.github.com (out-27.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81A8D3A089C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-9bcb4a1.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-9bcb4a1.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.84]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA4AE007F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1593551212; bh=dhsXPrlVtKSI49lx93X5HQ5NVh1Ate4Fs/lokblRwmo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=CXWKL6hCJ4/YmItDOECYLrXBxT5FH70vF9ExQRuztFUNLwdeBh4O7BJTIOCxB/HE3 aTN37HNiodX9yphitifFLu6w/4VdRyUSVvldhZWsufnns73zTk4DvQ/69ZZ4O2ypo+ TX2Q8KFUbhyDLgpIW9RSxyW5NRjTpEV6pPMu8Ktk=
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:06:52 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4R6J7WOYOBO2WRVE55A6FGZEVBNHHCNJZZUM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3797@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] PATH_RESPONSE isn't path-tied (#3797)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5efba96c2cf1a_2d8b3fd19b4cd96428155c"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/ba4ji-jmvaiQZKqwp73oBsl8hcI>
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, 30 Jun 2020 21:07:03 -0000
In #2637, we removed the requirement that PATH_RESPONSE be sent/received on the same path that PATH_CHALLENGE was sent. However, there is still text in the document that relies on this assumption. - In 8.5, it explains that receipt of the PATH_RESPONSE on another interface doesn't cause validation to fail, because "It is possible that a valid PATH_RESPONSE might be received in the future." But receipt of the PATH_RESPONSE, over any interface *is* valid, and causes the validation to *succeed*. - In 9.2, it suggests using path validation to demonstrate return reachability, but since PATH_RESPONSE need not be sent on the same path, path validation doesn't demonstrate that. -- 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/3797
- [quicwg/base-drafts] PATH_RESPONSE isn't path-tie… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PATH_RESPONSE isn't path… Christian Huitema
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PATH_RESPONSE isn't path… Martin Thomson