Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sent on a different path than PATH_CHALLENGE? (#4064)
Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 02 September 2020 01:20 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 9FC8C3A0980 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 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_16=1.092, 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 8QF8KQUnuNyD for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-27.smtp.github.com (out-27.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 864A53A097F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0CE4902630 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1599009633; bh=G+I692hUPOdCwuNP0PwesaCAdHjleFmBGpOpAB71+cI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=mGWMi6HSiLpeia0WeoAXX8M8I80SHAxnoX3kd9hj3YEtAO8VKA537trSOHDSY1wRE cJT+v3HhTpIpFl8rQXuDr4kgmKW8zyNkptqF+pjBZ9HHr7sL8Ie2UT2+tMTVaVHkS+ 4kaeAPZg4GQMND3hGK06NF970RXi/NeaIbZejQUc=
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 18:20:33 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5QKDHMEQBZGOEM3OF5LLKGDEVBNHHCSF377I@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4064/685223891@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4064@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4064@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sent on a different path than PATH_CHALLENGE? (#4064)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f4ef361b1af3_39e196414826b"; 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/odyFv4hn6y6EX2Oo4h9c-A2UCQg>
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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 01:20:36 -0000
So I thought we were really crisp about this, but we were not. PATH_RESPONSE does not need to follow the path on which PATH_CHALLENGE was received. We're clear about this when it comes to preferred address handling, but there is some vestigial text that contradicts this. That should be fixed. -- 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/4064#issuecomment-685223891
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sent on… David Schinazi
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… David Schinazi
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… Martin Thomson