IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rework Key Update (#2237)

Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com> Wed, 13 February 2019 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 19F18127287 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:05:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 lWqET1Dm0mJb for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:05:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o9.sgmail.github.com (o9.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93737129BBF for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:05:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=ygI9vQFC/Dpe4hR6SLj6IGLl94I=; b=NFui5iQEEp2MsLno lg9JWpOooAhrQhAF4MCFpTa9Ya/FVZBpoVnZljn7EayKX15R4uCYYfZ1W5bkBhGs aRiiHdx71LaF2jbUoKxpPDr0rU+pvhl8NcbFytyV34ijGGyQszoVZbT+ytPTohsf dWGwAAOcPLVYuT8wZrn33bulWk0=
Received: by filter1153p1las1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter1153p1las1-31977-5C646A65-5 2019-02-13 19:05:09.260814213 +0000 UTC m=+432537.088107130
Received: from github-lowworker-dcc078e.cp1-iad.github.net (unknown [192.30.252.44]) by ismtpd0010p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id 8bbXrSFVQyWi2hgtxLKRbA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:05:09.170 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from github.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by github-lowworker-dcc078e.cp1-iad.github.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231192C0097 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:05:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:05:09 +0000
From: Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab7e65b1ec36a6ddd85fc4eb6d78b63bd2098beae392cf00000001187c2c6592a169ce1770e975@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2237/c463325186@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2237@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2237@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rework Key Update (#2237)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c646a6521842_7273f9f328d45bc1786f1"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: huitema
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak1H9h02vEu68ST074i+Gi7FS9nwt5NEarerog Z6F3wHsaIP+exjmhVFjEOJRHZF+k4/6ghk6ZFo/Zp7RtkGr3SchjrPEM6YmaVio5PrZoQxVm9AP4ZA Go88RwsVCnUspyx4Fq/gAr5dsYgrKvGR7mQp1zCQDfGaeUFIhEntfxohIuCig7BWa02/vbSPKLX+RT E=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/pRgB7rJqDiSriQN18Sz7BUsVs0I>
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, 13 Feb 2019 19:05:14 -0000

I left a comment on the mailing list. The more I look at it, the more I think that we should not invent a special mechanism, but simply reuse PATH_CHALLENGE/PATH_RESPONSE. What we are doing is effectively a continuity test for a set of addresses and a key. The challenge/response approach would bring clarity to the "acknowledge or not" issue.

Of course, there is downside to reusing path continuity for testing key continuity. If we want to decouple, then we could create KEY_CHALLENGE/KEY_RESPONSE frames that parallel for keys what the existing challenges to for paths.

-- 
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/2237#issuecomment-463325186

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email