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

Mike Bishop <> Thu, 06 February 2020 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1DA12004D for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 00:38:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rnGoOts00itg for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 00:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51C05120024 for <>; 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;; 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 <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3353/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
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
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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: