[quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sent on a different path than PATH_CHALLENGE? (#4064)
David Schinazi <notifications@github.com> Mon, 31 August 2020 18:30 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 5D9463A0D4A for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.008 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_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 VyAI2bYhegQU for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-27.smtp.github.com (out-27.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39E383A0D49 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-e8b54ca.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-e8b54ca.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301139000AA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1598898632; bh=VcZMTNV1bWN+Ui+yW9MfdipTCTJNUMmgXEkNKBuAb2Q=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=SmdKXaYvLj9uU7jBsjDk65AL86Hjfc5H/0tZwkX48A2SLuBK4FD+i4LOzT4qHw7ZC 5eKuAuvveomxDRNDwfIwY18gCcE69WJHmlU6G8MGwlIAbm2rkQU4PswVY4ZIPrBnV/ bly+/8WfllPAbxFlDgNp1euJnp/ioL48E9FbgO84=
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:30:32 -0700
From: David Schinazi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZB33ZURDVXU3UXCL55LERMREVBNHHCSF377I@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4064@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sent on a different path than PATH_CHALLENGE? (#4064)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f4d41c820d5b_5d5219642803ba"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
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/xC8LilMw2RohYBy-OnVbLHeb-4Q>
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: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 18:30:34 -0000
Currently, [the Path Validation Responses subsection](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-29#section-8.4) does not specify which path a PATH_RESPONSE needs to be sent over. That was somewhat surprising to me, as I had expected it to be scoped to the path that PATH_CHALLENGE was received on. If it isn't, could we add a sentence to the Path Validation Responses subsection to explicitly state that a PATH_RESPONSE is not scoped to a given path (and ideally explaining why it isn't)? -- 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/4064
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sent on… David Schinazi
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… David Schinazi
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… Martin Thomson