Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] A more complete connection migration (#1012)
From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <[email-masked]>
Cc: Subscribed <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 00:12:16 +0000 (UTC)
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>

I have mixed feelings about this. First, I am not sure that this belongs to the frame layer. The path challenge is in many ways similar to a client initial packet. It requires the same kind of padding, for the same reason. And it carries similar content restrictions such as "no other frame allowed". A new packet type might be more appropriate than a frame type.

Second, this probably requires a three ways handshake, not just a question response. And it would be better served with a symmetric structure -- 
Maybe "your nonce, my nonce", so as to allow symmetry.

Then, there maybe a need for more attributes than nonces, especially if we want to handle NAT rebinding. Like, echoing the address from where this was sent.

-- 
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/1012#issuecomment-353897083