Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Authenticating connection IDs (#3439)

MikkelFJ <> Thu, 05 March 2020 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BCC13A0953 for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 01:32:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.696
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.696 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 AdLTyQizZ4CD for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 01:32:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 230AF3A0951 for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 01:32:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1F3660A58 for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 01:32:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1583400740; bh=cI2D8yG240OsSOxmtXCP5D7CR3dQToUwlYwqLp5zOkI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=zbjGUi3OrzH9TIswusmQQulBNW9AoL8lT4ruHPIc+sOZ/1Kq1mmUhKNkSu/sMKfoy tiYQNWrQCiaLb6JRZj41Mymt4PF4hafgzzjfsI4pN4DIsj4F+ZWB9LeHFg1AvDB2zG V97aTKi+jrwP/+wjyo76UPCIAXNElRtjiEQdhUic=
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 01:32:20 -0800
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3439/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Authenticating connection IDs (#3439)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e60c724ca35d_35043fa6cdccd9646646c"; 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
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, 05 Mar 2020 09:32:23 -0000

@martinthomson quote " Or, we can ask clients to conditionally validate server behaviour."
I don't think we can rely on clients validating server chosen CIDs . My intuition tells me that rogue or careless clients might compromise server infrastructure.

@marten-seemann I like the idea of keeping the state in the handshake and avoid a TP for that. However, I suspect that a server choosing a new CID from a Retry might move traffic to a separate server in choosing that CID so you cannot remember if the resulting server was indeed the intended server. I'm a bit vague on this, so I might be mistaken.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: