IETF Logo Mail Archive

[quicwg/base-drafts] How long is a validated address good for? (#3880)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Thu, 09 July 2020 05:55 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 173D53A091C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 22:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 JcWbzzjZ0xM0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 22:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-13.smtp.github.com (out-13.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C891D3A0914 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 22:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-d31a065.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-d31a065.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36790261843 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 22:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594274123; bh=8yirkOwOZ7shWnn9z6nxC7wG1Dc+5Zbj3FZOBSAiODI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=MF5A25Ze3ximElP8u98VxLmazv9PWKJrw+jqwD0IByaT0jN8M7/UBEw5dxOn7f0Z6 cCz2UzH2ACxH4AX+4xI2NADGP7WPqH4fGyZFUDDpm+l8wO2tbgnuNi/v59e8sYGcGY dO963x/bDHe0PdbMm4qAl/MpbYQZ+lK2tz7T8GCc=
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 22:55:22 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7V5GCJREIPSZ2UNSN5CKJEVEVBNHHCN572XY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3880@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] How long is a validated address good for? (#3880)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f06b14ae5006_a6a3fafe54cd9643875f2"; 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/jfStbGi3Nx273QZoIE5hgKd6bnU>
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: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 05:55:25 -0000

There are a few cases where we don't have continuous validation of a peer address.  A long idle timeout might still be short enough that this isn't a concern.

1. A path migration that returns to a previously-used path might happen over a relatively long period of time.

2. NEW_TOKEN can be good for a considerable time.

Right now, the time limit is entirely undefined.  That might be the right answer, but maybe we should say that we don't know.

If we do think that a time limit makes sense, then we need to pick a value.  I wouldn't even dare to suggest a number right now.

-- 
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/issues/3880

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email