Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Coalescing different CIDs for same connection (#3800)

[hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike,

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:59 PM Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I think we need to make *a* change, in one direction or the other. It's
> unfortunate to mix CIDs, since it clearly links them to any observer, but
> doesn't seem like a big deal.
>
Can you say more about why you don't see this as an issue?  Is it because
this use case is most likely during the handshake?  Or is there some other
linkability already present that makes this less of an issue?

regards,

Ted



> For some implementations, it sounds like it's a big deal to avoid mixing
> them. Therefore, while I'm content with either resolution, it seems like it
> makes more sense to resolve toward being more permissive; e.g. #3870
> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3870>.
>
> Mixing packets from different connections seems like a generally bad idea,
> since it assumes an implementation structure on the far end for it to work.
> The more likely outcome is that coalesced packets from other connections
> will simply be dropped as invalid. (Of course, this very property could be
> used for padding / misleading observers.)
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3800#issuecomment-657761307>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKVXZG2NRCVNV3NJV7ADS3R3NRTRANCNFSM4OMZFPYA>
> .
>


-- 
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/3800#issuecomment-657765332