Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Be more conservative about migration? (#2143)

Eric Kinnear <> Mon, 23 September 2019 07:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80F112011C for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.495
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, 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
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UQQ3B7YM3IIh for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12CBB12004F for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4123FC60686 for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:56:56 -0700
From: Eric Kinnear <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2143/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Be more conservative about migration? (#2143)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d887ac8330b6_5bbd3f95b6acd95c1741bc"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: erickinnear
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: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:56:59 -0000

@gorryfair, I've now pushed some updates that try to make this clearer, another look and comments would be most welcome! (I expect this will take some iterating, but let's start with what's there and improve it.)

@mikkelfj I've added a paragraph about blind active attackers (which are probably off-path since it's hard to not see the packets if you're on-path). 

Overall, I've kept the distinction of on-path vs. off-path, and referenced the definition for such in RFC 3552 which may help make things a bit clearer.

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