Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Retry Token Makeup #1474

Closed
nibanks opened this issue Jun 25, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

Retry Token Makeup #1474

nibanks opened this issue Jun 25, 2018 · 2 comments
Labels
-transport design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list.

Comments

@nibanks
Copy link
Member

nibanks commented Jun 25, 2018

This issue is related to the new Stream 0 dt PR (#1450).

Is a client allowed to change its connection ID in response to a Retry packet from a server?

The reason I ask is that it is possible to conceive of a server generating a token for a stateless Retry that encodes the client's original CID (among other things) in it for validation purposes. If the client is allowed to change its CID, then that obviously would break. So I feel we should have text either explicitly saying the client may (which I don't see how we could prevent) change its CID, and that a server shouldn't try to use the CID for stateless Retry validation or that a client must not change its CID so the server can use it for validation in stateless Retry.

@martinthomson martinthomson added design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. -transport labels Jun 26, 2018
@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

My thought would be a token that is carried in a Retry would be bound strongly to the connection ID. It's very different to NEW_TOKEN in that way.

@nibanks
Copy link
Member Author

nibanks commented Jun 27, 2018

Should we add text to say that the client SHOULD NOT change their source CID in response to a Retry packet? If so, I can send a PR to that effect.

@mnot mnot added the has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list. label Mar 5, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-transport design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants