Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction between token types (#3128)
Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Fri, 01 November 2019 22:02 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 DCDDF12083A
for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 15:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 ffzbe0hzN4GE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Fri, 1 Nov 2019 15:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1B1512082F
for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 15:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-28f8021.ac4-iad.github.net
(github-lowworker-28f8021.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.98])
by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0023C6A0C4B
for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 15:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com;
s=pf2014; t=1572645747;
bh=o9MjICRUUy9qGE/u/6KAAKqrqfn0Zs0cJdkYZhLHnlw=;
h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID:
List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From;
b=MgsGvrrua7MqYbzmHmr9JtDjraA6TjkJr5ZTiukLeyrG9EtbjQNhJMDt7U89KKZ73
iMn7UyA/7F/laWTwf6IJ+g4epoY0E1+ROrpY0crNZoa6uGotxizFpFyXMl308bjTdi
dQhJh8t+sAJqqGmxulibqrmjZlbCLrrCqnbj90yI=
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 15:02:26 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts
<reply+AFTOJK6SESQTZJVPHFAAV7F3ZHWAFEVBNHHB43A2P4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3128/review/310713842@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3128@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3128@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction between token types
(#3128)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="--==_mimepart_5dbcab72e5a5a_21483fb4b28cd95c60026";
charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/sTFWU7Z3CPGsXk0msJUsL3V0K3s>
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: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 22:02:30 -0000
janaiyengar commented on this pull request. A few comments. > @@ -1623,6 +1623,14 @@ also constrained in what they can send by the limits set by the congestion controller. Clients are only constrained by the congestion controller. +### Token Construction + +Tokens sent in NEW_TOKEN frames or Retry packets MUST be constructed in a way ```suggestion A token sent in a NEW_TOKEN frame or a Retry packet MUST be constructed in a way ``` > @@ -1675,22 +1683,20 @@ one. The client MUST NOT use the token provided in a Retry for future connections. Servers MAY discard any Initial packet that does not carry the expected token. -A token SHOULD be constructed in a way that allows the server to distinguish it -from tokens that are sent in Retry packets as they are carried in the same -field. - -The token MUST NOT include information that would allow it to be linked by an -on-path observer to the connection on which it was issued. For example, it -cannot include the connection ID or addressing information unless the values are -encrypted. - Unlike the token that is created for a Retry packet, there might be some time between when the token is created and when the token is subsequently used. Thus, a token SHOULD have an expiration time, which could be either an explicit Make this a MUST too? I don't see why this is a SHOULD. > Unlike the token that is created for a Retry packet, there might be some time between when the token is created and when the token is subsequently used. Thus, a token SHOULD have an expiration time, which could be either an explicit expiration time or an issued timestamp that can be used to dynamically calculate the expiration time. A server can store the expiration time or include it in an encrypted form in the token. +A token issued with NEW_TOKEN MUST NOT include information that would allow +values to be linked by an on-path observer to the connection on which it was +issued. For example, it cannot include the previous connection ID or addressing +information unless the values are encrypted. Information that allows the server Move this "unless" clause up to the first sentence. The unless applies to the MUST NOT. -- 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/3128#pullrequestreview-310713842
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction betwee… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Nick Banks
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction be… MikkelFJ