RE: Connection IDs

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

I think Christian's concerns were addressed.  Language was added to require that if you see a CID change, you also need to move to the next CID you have available.  An issue was opened to track the "what if you run out?" question.

There was briefly language added saying that if you see the peer change addresses without changing CIDs, you should change CIDs for them.  However, if we do that, an on-path attacker can start rewriting source addresses on packets to drain your pool of allocated CIDs and force you into the newly-opened issue.

However, Christian should confirm whether these resolve his concerns.

From: QUIC [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Subodh Iyengar
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 12:26 PM
To: Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>; Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ian Swett <[e-mail]>; IETF QUIC WG <[e-mail]>; Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Connection IDs


Unsurprisingly I am positive on the direction of this as well and the PR looks good to me



Note: I do not work for mozilla or google :), but was a part of the connid design


IIRC there was one unresolved question by Christian about both clients and servers needing to change the connids to enforce linkability, was that resolved?



Subodh

________________________________
From: QUIC <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Martin Thomson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 12:19:02 PM
To: Jana Iyengar
Cc: IETF QUIC WG; Patrick McManus; Ian Swett
Subject: Re: Connection IDs

Just to add to this and bring this list up to speed...

Ian opened https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issue/1166 which
suggests moving the Version field into a fixed location.

To that end: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1167

Does anyone have anything more to add (perhaps someone who does not
work for Mozilla or Google) here?  The feedback I've received is
overwhelmingly positive thus far and my hope is to merge this ahead of
the editors starting an extended editing session next week.


On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> +1 to this is the direction we're all converging on.
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:01 AM, Ian Swett
> <ianswett=[e-mail]<mailto:ianswett=[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Agreed, I unsurprisingly think this is the right direction.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 8:05 AM Patrick McManus <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> big picture this is good.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've written up a PR that enacts the changes suggested by the design
>>>> team [1].
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1151
>>>>
>>>> This adds two connection IDs to the long header.  An explicit length
>>>> is added for each.
>>>>
>>>> The short header includes the raw connection ID without any C bit or
>>>> length.
>>>>
>>>> I've tried to explain the limitations of the design where they apply.
>>>> That includes stateless reset.
>>>>
>>>> This PR necessarily includes some choices about less critical aspects,
>>>> such as how connection ID lengths are encoded.  I ask that you try to
>>>> separate objections about minor issues like this from more serious
>>>> structural concerns.  I'm happy to discuss details, but I'm most
>>>> interested in whether this is broadly the right direction first.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> p.s., happy draft submission deadline day
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_quic_l-5Fb1NnBmQpQGCxCfQteOMkft-2DlE&d=DwIBaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=h3Ju9EBS7mHtwg-wAyN7fQ&m=tfbg3BLo-IK9aUKrHNiK-A7EBi5XuVtoq9cZsYYBwbA&s=50Q1gLhlSOcRuTmcpkgAnBusZim2NElvKAFN6IIX2Ec&e=
>>>>
>>>
>