Re: Hidden connection spawning

Martin Thomson <> Thu, 26 July 2018 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603E41310A6 for <>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 02:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54mjjdRK09Ne for <>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 02:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAB9C130E37 for <>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 02:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k12-v6so1794637oiw.8 for <>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 02:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=igBkSrzOJraKyz6ldighabE212F4NvamXaysa5g32RY=; b=N0gumd2aDNwtoUKPigLrOOnCAWdCel0AYNcxDi+GDeSnjpOnMCkj12xLhfsME9Qf6a YmjXjwva1sPayEaoiXerFd+uQatdl2/Yq/CzXuwZDtpE+JBJXUIFZoCF4m2GlsOprSf+ tLXuyofONSroBrK9yVbogYN351B2qAeXJlUQToq67IiX2lgtJ1LQDsKKxWkOao+e626R hVdmFj7KZ/CIsqjjpTn8Noa7dW53sjan8QiuILRDdEzDmRe2DNC01jY8sfbyqVpjXG+5 6lhD8mNsGz12m3XniX+UqtktwnSaUE1LrIRMhRbZn/rgKU66+0xONh3txIyKlTF/MUDR mJog==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=igBkSrzOJraKyz6ldighabE212F4NvamXaysa5g32RY=; b=exBYaZMuFhnCQTnLZBN2wj9Y5Ium42DIzlSkjYGXdPMIAAYh+ukSKztRfSuu7Z20Kp RbNj9CXhcBT+Q/idD20L+tR1JbE5bhNKgGWbsz6dTCeNtO0J5vjSi517p0xbz2PyBV1s ZNq8ngRBYd3WitANj15mzE5m36Zos8DnXDEUK2wQjXQ4pItuJF3uuDOggedHHAH8CrTR dK9PvghXPw0zj7K4azc2snRj5a9Qa1RgOcRLhlvwPr6EHop3H5CiGgJ3b6KBSbH3XMhm wQ0rM5umUX/g/mdKVO4MU6LeS5fkrFa56AJ0rS+2FYxfW76/LdHPiMcQYezr0DL9k1Rx XBJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlFJvWT4bvDFwWg1iK6m3UCh5mI3HrT10rEF4s2VvUrVSrt3cu4s sne3Yt5fn+mIYkWKTZzZENDtlyxnKqYA3+20EcE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpexkCiHi/WunqxFrS04UD3yPYF55CBYG8vIHyQY3sJKPemZFLvMVJ94Y81xw9515zVpYqucVRC8yk/ZJvRp3h8=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:100f:: with SMTP id 15-v6mr1246042oiq.110.1532597716877; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 02:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 19:35:05 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Hidden connection spawning
To: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <>
Cc: QUIC WG <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 09:35:20 -0000

Sounds like work for an extension to me.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 4:32 PM Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
<> wrote:
> I came to think about a use case where you want to spawn a new connection from an existing connection because the new connection runs a different protocol. For example a http connection where you  want to run a separate live conference call, or to control tunnels from http control connection.
> You have roughly three options:
> 1. extend the current protocol with the new feature set in extension frames or similar
> 2. develop or use a purposes specific QUIC protol using 0-RTT for spawning the connection
> 3. negotiate the new connection handshake within the current handshake.
> The first solution is not complex, limited, and not modular.
> The second solution can be used to get information about the connection, and for example block connections that appear to be doing that.
> The third solution allows for an invisible connection spawn, but requires addition handshake logic which is already complex as it is.
> I suggesting solution 3 as possible option, although I am not convinced that this is worthwhile, at least in V1.
> This was in part inspired by recent discussion on tunneling, and in part by the following issue where partial reliability is being discussed and possibly shoe-horned into an extension. I am not following that issue closely though - it is just an example.
> Mikkel