Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The method of identifying "the same server" (#3155)

Kazuho Oku <> Tue, 05 November 2019 04:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BAA212003F for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:13:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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 FHDxBGdY75B8 for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:13:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FCD0120020 for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:13:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83168C083C for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:13:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572927221; bh=fBHkt8rwYELWMtunksgkxRlctiHaGkX8FLg2KBqEdzw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=AVcW7fBaAo/J+8lcS4RvowihF8kQ1JAfuVNhB0/3TuQB3bMm3hHkwEUzqjzz/OmLY mnFXYy4A/jsCKjk9qGtTgqs/+iByq0qrmS21HRlBJQXtZ0mcPHfu64Eg7nJz++Tc1a xkGaYdAZ44W5Fc58w3QYpQd69I/MOlPjhJP04bxg=
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 20:13:41 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3155/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The method of identifying "the same server" (#3155)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc0f6f5c8f69_18d43fcd350cd9644117d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 04:13:44 -0000

> The client will not use the token if it has migrated to a different address. 

The specification is not written as such. Section 8.1.2 states, that _if the client has a token received in a NEW_TOKEN frame on a previous connection to what it believes to be the same server, it SHOULD include that value in the Token field of its Initial packet._ There is no requirement for the client to check it's address (or the network).

I think that the approach used by the specification is correct. In practice, I think we cannot assume that all the clients would correctly deal with their source address explicitly (as well as the change of the address). Besides, a change of source address does not necessarily mean that the client has migrated to a different network. Consider the case where a client goes out of one DHCP network, then returns to that network. In such case, the client might receive a different address, but it is still on the same network. After all, we are requiring the server to associate NEW_TOKEN tokens and the original source address. Then, why not let the server decide if a token can be reused?

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