Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The method of identifying "the same server" (#3155)

Igor Lubashev <> Sun, 03 November 2019 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A60120025 for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 09:46:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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 8eQvxfKxRqIL for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 09:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EE38120018 for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 09:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 09:46:46 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572803206; bh=nU8q70Kh4l0/KEDMIQRZPfNuwusiVbdtymG7CzfjI4Y=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=0yYSCbjHeBiRu8lsVj46vT5WuV6wMcEY93mL33IS4yweHYaR08muIBP6C1kjWii9a 8Yv3zkILESe+k8+4xuilKtm9a8ngmOD9Psmt0KboZ+uhz0jliQXOrcZOmSt3MHAMaD EK17SPevsGmWkgCEiZ57tbtY/XKUc1ft6UArgK8A=
From: Igor Lubashev <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3155/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The method of identifying "the same server" (#3155)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dbf1286e195c_76d43fd5404cd95c18809ed"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
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: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 17:46:50 -0000

I see a lot of value in alternative "a or c" for CDNs. The purpose of the token is to prove to the server that the client owns the address. It should not matter why the client received the token (similar to TFO token).

As for the privacy, I do not see a problem. The gateway already sees everything and knows everything. If the backends cooperate, they already know everything. If they do not cooperate, this is no different than a multi-CDN case.

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