Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Migration with zero-length CID is inadvisable (#3563)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Mon, 20 April 2020 05:48 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 C9AD93A1096 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 22:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.082
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.082 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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=1.282, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 uZ-O61oJ3qeF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 22:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-3.smtp.github.com (out-3.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D5C63A1099 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 22:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-0f7e7fd.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-0f7e7fd.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.110.17]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84A1D2C0B98 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 22:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1587361723; bh=FxshyIg6nDUcd5LoAQZptvX7TlKmzeZ131n8rwRKNAw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=AyearFbQlojnvIdgDNAhrkGJdR2cANc5Tbon2n7udqgZAzf0KQsbP8JkusraUWNA1 kUlGFeH+cZfrjmG6pB+Jc0ZRJ/jp4hBQs4D1nUKu4mGC5EuEoKFHKD/634svln/QYD i/2cXDbg/sY6wsZzwO0vdn8toPHt6q093mzOL3xM=
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 22:48:43 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3UJZ3SBNVDQ4WPN2N4VEMLXEVBNHHCGQM7OQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3563/review/396154137@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3563@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3563@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Migration with zero-length CID is inadvisable (#3563)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e9d37bb75231_79153fe9494cd96c971735"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/eQkwBdcyu-PIJCtbm_B5ap6D7vI>
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: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 05:48:46 -0000

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2246,6 +2246,14 @@ that packet numbers cannot be used to correlate activity.  This does not prevent
 other properties of packets, such as timing and size, from being used to
 correlate activity.
 
+An endpoint SHOULD NOT initiate migration with a peer that uses a zero-length
+connection ID, for two reasons. First, if the peer routes incoming packets using

Thanks David.  I think that is clearer and have tweaked it.  I'm not sure that the last statement is entirely correct, because - at least in theory - there are systems with properties similar to connection IDs.  However, I'm OK with adding that on the assumption that an endpoint will need to be aware of the scheme so that they can participate in it.

-- 
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/3563#discussion_r411108809