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

Kazuho Oku <> Mon, 04 November 2019 04:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0AD1200C7 for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 20:43:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_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
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZO9iuN8G7pxy for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 20:43:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B9CB120046 for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 20:43:19 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 20:43:17 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572842597; bh=t338tIuYrLqFiba9mp53W2BLsUClEXfhZldqcC35AFw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=P6gX5SpQbx07zal7kWebX1DjUSizv28KR3lbKsUCutreZywDTNSV7kcm2zhWvi9r6 UVSstpO5oGOmvt6lF1z0bxGAajRuxW508U1nO+sxaMX8Nf5I667QPmB5iTNCe6WYpj 4bAeoPyzjEqC7aPWr92Cd+/WIbKNzKpJ3a0nkWZw=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
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_5dbfac6586dcf_35d33fb0f20cd96486887f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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, 04 Nov 2019 04:43:21 -0000

> As for the privacy, I do not see a problem. The gateway already sees everything and knows everything.

Only when the gateway is encrypting / decrypting the traffic. Counterexample is QUIC-LB, where the gateway just forwards the packets to different backend servers.

> If they do not cooperate, this is no different than a multi-CDN case.

(c) is exactly the same as what we state for TLS session tickets in RFC 1.3, which covers the multi-CDN case. If we want to be more lax, I think we need to present that there is no privacy concerns in doing so.

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