Return-Path: X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A39C63A07D1 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 18:26:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.12 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=E4jfQ8SF; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=RmI52+dt 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 k7oQoNVN46NE for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 18:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 964BB3A07CE for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 18:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12FC5C00E6; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 21:26:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 21:26:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :cc:subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=k5L8z15ICgLPbfCoYRIorraj44Hd Of7RrGJA79Uu8ts=; b=E4jfQ8SFJxkRsUoiJnELgQBOXdHKD4lH9+6EdX1/7Q7H NwE2YzsWumvRymcULavDwMF1UxogkJGprE17zFoqeUVeyx7dpUlfwzMB0POGf43b BI9s7L10dKFMuI+QaT9KJiJxHqIxXZDtjIc21TqaBCLuS0nFfbrWo0gBOcSF9d0N lWtW13xdBdO0yK0YnV19oHXGglKTqYPH3RUnId/SsQtsP8eJKkODv/ikMP4AcPJX zBQFH0GztvovJn4YUnAlRNI1p/Czsm7W2LrUxYwb9NRawwDBeD905kSv22mROcva FRPonCWnG3krr5ksZwQtL2bS7j2cC2VQbTO9xJfc5w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=k5L8z1 5ICgLPbfCoYRIorraj44HdOf7RrGJA79Uu8ts=; b=RmI52+dtugzwE2bf/x5KEw gjakWsIvj5jIHHn+Gbso9aj1GuKKq5dyGA5kAMJFk8aIgq2OXSi4WreEM7x0uf9S SAWoywPB6YVkkkZTRbhzPKnLLpJKnrysWeK+JqP7PqboTQ9IL1xLbfLhXrgXs3E6 r3cc34qHXdNTJt+ICGX6BrLl7izhBCCyrcHJwuIxIsAIz3rP4XKUzWTR8+105nNx RglDEeeKt1rXB3sKYieEqZPedn+LjVjYennbMuMF3ciAmLXg3Z2Heppnueo6Y0JE VDYaOQigBScfYDfp1TdktPqjd/KfW6/T83M3G7nS6/fN+gpRt0O9X23HRtzGaJZg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrhedvgdeggecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtre dtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdforghrthhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehlohif vghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdeghfekgeffhfetfeejke evfeetheehleegheehveelfeetfeeikeefgfejvdegnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhu sgdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 42119E00C9; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 21:26:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-92-g11c785d-fm-20200721.004-g11c785d5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <6278ac6e-d0e6-460f-b9ee-71297b90bf17@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <60bc7458-c054-4715-aba2-8c4c9393f74d@www.fastmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 11:26:25 +1000 From: "Martin Thomson" To: "Ben Schwartz" Cc: "" Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [TLS] Authenticating incompatible protocols X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 01:26:50 -0000 On Thu, Jul 16, 2020, at 06:52, Ben Schwartz wrote: > Basically, I think this draft should probably either name the scope or > be specific to SVCB, to avoid cases where the scope is ambiguous. > Naming the scope, and providing a scope identifier meaning "IP and port > number", would often be sufficient for secure QUIC upgrade without > SVCB, at the cost of some conceptual complexity. It took me a while to think this through. tl;dr, I agree with your conclusion. Written up in a longer form as an issue: https://github.com/martinthomson/snip/issues/1