Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rework Retry packet (#1498)

Nick Banks <notifications@github.com> Fri, 29 June 2018 02:06 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 BB0A8130E46 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 E4PPixk586F6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-6.smtp.github.com (out-6.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88649130E45 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:05:59 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1530237959; bh=iMWgePI/+KBpDbDm/3+r/9svowsqYDg3MKjIACBf+5U=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=gL+xNOfqHgwzr/s63qsXtEb+H6WzdBgTddnBqLuVWqGVSvrw/TvVQvptV0ImyRilH I+OlIvj+Kr1Ci3Rgj+b28HyeddEwbUl/Q34WrmeMiQdxuLGGqyUpXQYntjSs8iAy7u apwzVSNDLocVjldKm7eFUtP+VoO2DqVut4NcmQ0w=
From: Nick Banks <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab66080b34cbbbc613139fd56d4a652f74cafbc72592cf00000001174d560792a169ce14138c09@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1498/review/133076842@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1498@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1498@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rework Retry packet (#1498)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b3594077ec31_40883f9215142f8089140"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
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/csoEP_Hz8-7waZ78F4RRMi3hf44>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 02:06:04 -0000

nibanks commented on this pull request.

Generally looks good. Just a few comments.

> +
+Retry Token:
+
+: An opaque token that the server can use to validate the client's address.
+
+The server populates the Destination Connection ID with the connection ID that
+the client included in the Source Connection ID of the Initial packet.
+
+The server includes a connection ID of its choice in the Source Connection ID
+field.  The client MUST use this connection ID in the Destination Connection ID
+of subsequent packets that it sends.
+
+A Retry packet does not include a packet number and cannot be explictly
+acknowledged by a client.
+
+A server MUST only send a Retry in response to a client Initial packet.

Could a server not send a Retry in response to a 0-RTT packet? Say the Initial was lost/reordered, and the 0-RTT arrived first.

> +
+A Retry packet does not include a packet number and cannot be explictly
+acknowledged by a client.
+
+A server MUST only send a Retry in response to a client Initial packet.
+
+If the Original Destination Connection ID field does not match the Destination
+Connection ID from most recent the Initial packet it sent, clients MUST discard
+the packet.  This prevents an off-path attacker from injecting a Retry packet
+with a bogus new Source Connection ID.
+
+The client responds to a Retry packet with Initial packet that includes the
+provided Retry Token to continue connection establishment.
+
+A server that might send another Retry packet in response to a subsequent
+Initial packet MUST set the Source Connection ID to new value of at least 8

Two things. One, if multiple in-path devices send a Retry, how do other devices later in the path know they are sending 'another Retry packet'? Two, why 8 bytes? Why not 4 or 6 or any other number for that matter? Why not just specify that a CID (of any length) must be sent in response?

-- 
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/pull/1498#pullrequestreview-133076842