Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix: a connection is not identified by a *collection* (#1632)

From: Dmitri Tikhonov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 16:08:48 +0000 (UTC)

This small change contains several other improvements, each with a clear
purpose behind it.

    1. Replace the word "collection" with the word "set," as the former
       looks a lot like "connection."

    2. Remove the "unlikely to be unique" parenthetical clause: it is
       obvious that there can only be one unique zero-length connection ID.

    3. Drop the "assigned to it" part of the sentence, as it is unnecessary
       in this introductory paragraph.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1632

-- Commit Summary --

  * Fix: a connection is not identified by a *collection*

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (8)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1632.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1632.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1632

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 16:59:38 -0700

Merged #1632.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1632#event-1766500815

---

From: MikkelFJ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 23:44:44 -0700

Connections ID's are not necessarily unique since they can be distinquished also by tuple. Before the asymmetric design unqueness could not be guaranteed as the ID could be peer selected. Now it can be made unique but it still doesn't have to be - and for closed connections a risk remains, especially if you have less than 32-bits as is being proposed here https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1628

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1632#issuecomment-409823628

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2018 10:15:40 -0700

I think we need to assume that CIDs are unique without regard to the client address, because otherwise you won't survive NAT rebinding.  The same will be true for server addresses if we allow server migration in a future version, so I'd like to lay the conceptual groundwork here.

I agree that a server could hypothetically reuse CIDs across its own addresses, but to me that seems more conceptually akin to multiple independent servers running on different ports.  I'm inclined to leave the uniqueness comments in, as @dtikhonov has done here.

I originally said "unlikely to be" unique, since IIRC we have at least one implementation that used zero-length addresses until there was a tuple overlap.  Zero-length can be unique if it's the only one.  :-)

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1632#issuecomment-411133382