IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Description of the use of Preferred Address is unclear (#3353)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Thu, 06 February 2020 08:38 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 AF1DA12004D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 00:38:45 -0800 (PST)
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 rnGoOts00itg for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 00:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-10.smtp.github.com (out-10.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51C05120024 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 00:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 00:38:43 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1580978323; bh=ZPgYLg5wGmxkUU95eyNhNF6jq/S28D6ejskPAYwxN7Y=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=yXqDT1jKZFmhmg7hhx560E3fTKyMC/7klujs71I5/jxHH8tlEzOK07WQfpvixQNIA Y4m0fHbCPvBU6HMRWhfIBY99SVRsGX1t/CR76i9b0g8Ap0bMsoMNVvkPbip2uJelEJ 2i+Iyi1MmyhNDXQxrPWtuSbO1uA8bQULN58xi8lI=
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK23BJQCXI6VFKARWBN4JEBRHEVBNHHCBWF2DE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3353/582794240@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3353@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3353@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Description of the use of Preferred Address is unclear (#3353)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e3bd093356d0_1f0b3fdee2ecd96059874f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/slNUr_dqsuNZAsUL3qmROhyTXdk>
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, 06 Feb 2020 08:38:46 -0000

The summary of our discussion over dinner last night is that there are various mechanisms a server could employ, but they all depend on one key point:  Both endpoints are under joint control, because they're cooperating to handle the connection.  Therefore, it's possible to generate a CID that each endpoint will be able to work with.  (There are various approaches to generating such a CID, which are implementation-specific; one or more approaches might be described in the QUIC-LB draft.)

That means we don't need to separate CIDs by endpoint; if the migration is successful, the server could choose to issue CIDs that aren't valid on the handshake endpoint, which is now out of the picture.

-- 
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/3353#issuecomment-582794240

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email