Re: Consensus Calls for Transport/TLS issues, pre-Singapore

Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <> Thu, 14 November 2019 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06D712010C for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 00:51:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 Tl7M6UOtj5zQ for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 00:51:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C1CD120945 for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 00:51:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x11so4282221eds.13 for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 00:51:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XIS4GWh0/EycLCcGXW26sk/KZhFcRL+U2QYUe6ijvHw=; b=Xf8UX500Udh+3LGeKa9ojnmt9JGhjaRDTqBTluMFRen33zlhrtUrWWI7GCPUlh6tHT jRuUbMLuy5yM66AifDVII6Njb1EAGpD6MqKmDV+qJ1rfAfkJoFKwpwE0lP6XtM2BeZ09 /Af+yab2ip9F+YCAJ8jp0NYfPLLd8l6eoGWp2iYvb3KOqK/VFAQyoDdnXWlND0NjO1GJ 54Fp9YMTKJf4ydVBKXEnzBYoSUQ7PpAIbhqA+yqJaNXPgXGQpW+HJ9p/XgFk7srMsyhX /PjgeFmdOPjusexe5vj7CrWPBwuYeAgud7mlkCbcfXWiKiq/k8+GtuFHjak38Cl2nHjP otXQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XIS4GWh0/EycLCcGXW26sk/KZhFcRL+U2QYUe6ijvHw=; b=XKnZJ01kNfG1FQGY0qolXoqQfISWheeYejn6dO71M48lhBT6XTQqs4o9E9Z1ObyZsR Ke9p4MRQ2fJK3a9bgfZo669fBBwaNeas9jaX3IW1CE+/sUBlEQD+kfG97SpZ9HufUQTQ MSiCWdDdp1YS45sNnFEFbgfUA2uCXoqfTv8D13q6TMCVB7AYvBYTDWrgmPjV3MgNrtoH yyoitqj6LT022Qr3m1g2luwd1rFLKvMw0zAvR4Z1yb7StVV/Wr0w1hRBI+NHXVpnKoDb MjYMPaN9tfp+q8/JTlFJ1x7cD2c8Y5/XX5KhK4Pesr2dxDwY6hFGTZErRtC4iImfcfaz yiYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVhVEP9vPtzQX4eSVr1nrvZV0iTlbqde/+Yf8tnOtwr2jpt+4oB ptp4r8uQRViQpP1m1ZBcl9dv02E/WvhOjYzHYgvlwoeS
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzP/GMlLr1nlVzxXWI4OhzKI+vLaw2AIi8nrGOGmZx/MRA7J5fY/7GrS9paZTCLqPypibHleyglPaoTgzuUf2s=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:ce96:: with SMTP id y22mr8794570edv.100.1573721473461; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 00:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 09:51:12 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mikkel_Fahn=C3=B8e_J=C3=B8rgensen?= <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Airmail (420)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 09:51:12 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Consensus Calls for Transport/TLS issues, pre-Singapore
To: IETF QUIC WG <>, Mark Nottingham <>
Cc: Lars Eggert <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000066b14a05974a9579"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 14 Nov 2019 08:51:18 -0000

I added a comment to

 #3155: The method of identifying "the same server"

I’m not sure the MUST / SHOULD is correct in this case. Although I do agree
that server identify should not be limited to server certificates (I
proposed that myself).


On 14 November 2019 at 02.26.05, Mark Nottingham ( wrote:

The following issues have proposals for resolution, and discussion so far
seems to support consensus to accept them. If you object, please do so on
the issue or in response to this message (changing the Subject
appropriately!). Absent any pushback, we'll direct the editors to
incorporate them late next week. Note that by default we won't discuss
these issues in Singapore, unless something comes up.

See <> for the current
state of issues in the Late Stage process, itself defined at <>;.

* #3127: NEW_TOKEN and Retry tokens must be distinguishable

* #3158: Application close should be disallowed in Initial or Handshake

* #3155: The method of identifying "the same server"

* #2475: Invalid CONNECTION_CLOSE frames

* #3168: Allow servers to close connections immediately when the token is

* #3194: reordered NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames with retired sequence numbers
shouldn't be used

* #3014: Handling of corrupt Retry packets

* #3095: Backoff of CONNECTION_CLOSE needs to be a MUST

Mark Nottingham