Re: Is the invariants draft really standards track?

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Mon, 22 June 2020 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343DD3A0FC4 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 10:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 tLmt0aMBsICV for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 10:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 545BE3A0FC2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 10:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet (dhcp-166.access.rits.tisf.net [24.104.150.166]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (1024 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35EE3B0588; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:26:32 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Subject: Re: Is the invariants draft really standards track?
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:26:31 +0000
Message-ID: <1865626.yaPRte9qB2@linux-9daj>
Organization: none
In-Reply-To: <CH2PR22MB20860DB081531EF5D3458EF9DA970@CH2PR22MB2086.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAM4esxQBqfrz24riPQA_VGKcGp_TzW0pqb97KfFMtNdW9pUfDg@mail.gmail.com> <1621715.PBmxXT1aCC@linux-9daj> <CH2PR22MB20860DB081531EF5D3458EF9DA970@CH2PR22MB2086.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/FedLX6qn1qSbRptDgVhehk0ZZHg>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:26:36 -0000

On Monday, 22 June 2020 15:33:44 UTC Mike Bishop wrote:
> Negotiating the 5-tuple in-band is problematic in the client-server
> direction; in the presence of a NAT, the client doesn't know what
> address/port the server is going to see when it uses a new path.  For the
> same reason (NAT opening), the client always goes first with connection
> migration, even if it's the server's address changing.  However, we're
> assuming that the server has the ability to provide the client a
> directly-reachable address, so that probably covers your in-band
> negotiation.

ty. 

-- 
Paul