Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Stop requiring remote address to match during path validation (#2637)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

martinthomson requested changes on this pull request.



> @@ -1762,9 +1756,9 @@ initiated while a path validation on the old path is in progress.
 # Connection Migration {#migration}
 
 The use of a connection ID allows connections to survive changes to endpoint
-addresses (that is, IP address and/or port), such as those caused by an endpoint
-migrating to a new network.  This section describes the process by which an
-endpoint migrates to a new address.
+addresses (the two-tuple of IP address and port), such as those caused by an

```suggestion
addresses (IP address and port), such as those caused by an
```

For some, this is a three-tuple, if you include the address family.

> @@ -1714,12 +1714,6 @@ meets the following criteria:
   acknowledgment for a packet containing a PATH_CHALLENGE frame is not adequate
   validation, since the acknowledgment can be spoofed by a malicious peer.
 
-- It was sent from the same remote address to which the corresponding
-  PATH_CHALLENGE was sent. If a PATH_RESPONSE frame is received from a different
-  remote address than the one to which the PATH_CHALLENGE was sent, path
-  validation is considered to have failed, even if the data matches that sent in
-  the PATH_CHALLENGE.
-
 - It was received on the same local address from which the corresponding
   PATH_CHALLENGE was sent.

I think that we can remove this requirement also.  For the recipient, there is no requirement to have the packet that carries a PATH_RESPONSE travel on any particular path.

What you need to have here is a much clearer split in the requirements: the responder MUST send a PATH_RESPONSE on the same path that it got the PATH_CHALLENGE on, but the initiator MUST accept a PATH_CHALLENGE that arrives on any path.  I think that you need a paragraph explaining that split and why it exists.

-- 
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/2637#pullrequestreview-229887152