IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Tue, 29 October 2019 07:17 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 D0D271200F6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 00:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, 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: 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 ma0Yo1uSPWaf for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 00:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-6.smtp.github.com (out-6.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 725951200F4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 00:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-292e294.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-292e294.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.102.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE8F51C0CA4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 00:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1572333473; bh=vOkPx+9346ZUPQVYcEWIL7D9VAgevATtcX23wIbxRGA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=VumQ1Dq/918bV/SNKAYA2eZxTKno1ohMKDz9AXk4TMz2lU3jBRmNDUHwAuqCJru23 W4d6lYTY6woH7vQBfIsIL8lqqHBnkLBhAhYLvDQuWnxQ1TiC/5qagsmRur671IFcUh 3VtNZoU73IJ61dT7dsJV7eydQnYxC0ykmSwRi1tM=
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 00:17:53 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7CODIBDUREO3TXR653YUNCDEVBNHHB5FITQM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3155/547288801@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3155@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3155@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The method of identifying "the same server" (#3155)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db7e7a1aeb9b_cce3fbffdccd95c63173"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/kCdDgUnZmjT2m_eUUS5OaeP7rDo>
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: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 07:17:56 -0000

FWIW, the discussion here relates to issue #3111 (PR #3166).

If we are to say that the scope of a token is tied to the identity of the server (i.e. server certificate), it becomes impractical to use token-based greasing for hosts that are not hosted by multiple entities (i.e. multi-CDN use-case). This is because owners of such hosts would not want to see an additional round-trip due to Version Negotiation packet being sent in response to an unknown version.

If we are to say that the scope of a token is a tuple of the server identity and the server address, maybe that becomes an non-issue, as we can assume that the tuple uniquely identifies the operator of the server.

-- 
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/3155#issuecomment-547288801

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email