IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Thu, 31 October 2019 08:31 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 EB273120876 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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 ZZUcgUu-eW8I for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42E58120048 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-e8b54ca.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-e8b54ca.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13CCA0C4E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1572510684; bh=yPqljnwc/UhOMuSNsmCIZZa9SZ3fAOMJATfUAcD3v9g=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=LYBZKqPPkoz/bA4gFWlNP+85FTIOiHgs3JAispBymJE+9q5IV4yaDm4gKZbbFI3cp q9a84MUghX3pRCSNgda+0eE4iv7MnmeRYxFzBAw3+9Jw2miSUvYzUFE+l8pIpG1n+Q ljjwHbXW9rT2A4Pb61nWx+Sm4TrJWiqKZg61pP+o=
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:31:24 -0700
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4VAEQT2NTJYS6OZMF3Y7HFZEVBNHHB5FITQM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3155/548264247@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_5dba9bdcc35b2_65263fd3278cd96413644a3"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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/qCAzI9sVTYjMrnOlrd_ej2hVzy0>
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: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:31:28 -0000

As I wrote in https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3166/files#r341003819
I think there is an aspect of certificate privacy where you can reconnect with a different server certificate after you obtain a secret salt. Making "same server" too narrow would prevent the privacy benefits of such an approach.`

Publishing a link between such certificates would kind of defeat the point, so there is a chicken/egg problem here. However, if the client has out of band knowledge of another domain that works, it should be allowed to use it.

-- 
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-548264247

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email