Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] CID change still required in response to migration? (#2778)

Martin Thomson <> Thu, 15 August 2019 02:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38945120816 for <>; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 19:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aA-xdbTIVsa8 for <>; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 19:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C638F12091B for <>; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 19:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 19:35:43 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1565836543; bh=I2LOEKl0woMJYLlvHSuVU6CjAaU4f//jT5NsIU8Ue/g=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=TxrlgJSWvCe6+ZkZ3z/CShpiD0RT3ANAkQ/dzyssHpS/AMl0HLDauRfO4wQ2HFgXO OBZGMUHfDCWWsXpnURK5kh/RFZM9f+oDhWES9ZgsR8DGbaoNIVWwblDNdpQHDtpoI3 bF3t2/cqVVBzdkwVEQl7dBsRoYZgEVuGORfv4WFY=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2778/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] CID change still required in response to migration? (#2778)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d54c4ffd06d0_2d663f93490cd96c1688ed"; 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
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: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 02:35:46 -0000

In reviewing this, I think we've messed up badly.  We currently only mandate the use of a new connection ID for the initiator of a migration.  A peer that responds to a connection migration has to change a connection ID if the initiator changed their connection ID.  

> An endpoint MUST use a new connection ID if it initiates connection migration. Using a new connection ID eliminates the use of the connection ID for linking activity from the same connection on different networks.

That needs to be fixed promptly.  Then the concerns that @tatsuhiro-t raises here might seem less surprising.

@mnot, @larseggert, can we recategorize this as design?  Thanks.

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