Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remove requirement for reciprocal connection ID change (#2386)

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 01:13:45 -0800

janaiyengar approved this pull request.

A couple of suggestions.

> @@ -2110,19 +2110,10 @@ infrequently.
 
 Endpoints that use connection IDs with length greater than zero could have their
 activity correlated if their peers keep using the same destination connection ID
-after migration. Endpoints that receive packets with a previously unused
-Destination Connection ID SHOULD change to sending packets with a connection ID
-that has not been used on any other network path.  The goal here is to ensure
-that packets sent on different paths cannot be correlated. To fulfill this
-privacy requirement, endpoints that initiate migration and use connection IDs
-with length greater than zero SHOULD provide their peers with new connection IDs
-before migration.
-
-Caution:
-
-: If both endpoints change connection ID in response to seeing a change in
-  connection ID from their peer, then this can trigger an infinite sequence of
-  changes.
+after migration.  The goal is to ensure that packets sent on different

This is a bit awkward. Suggested rewrite:
"after migration. To ensure that packets sent on different paths cannot be correlated, such endpoints SHOULD provide their peers with new connection IDs before migration."

> @@ -2110,19 +2110,10 @@ infrequently.
 
 Endpoints that use connection IDs with length greater than zero could have their

This is not part of your PR, but suggested change: "Endpoints that supply non-zero-length connection IDs ..."

-- 
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/2386#pullrequestreview-199487025

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 06:06:37 -0800

ianswett commented on this pull request.

+1 to Jana's suggestion.

-- 
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/2386#discussion_r253481352

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 14:57:11 -0800

@martinthomson pushed 1 commit.

48002d0f68802958f856a2a15cb41b079e355e88  Editorial changes

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2386/files/23014c8b8a59be658a5156ae46fcbacc7e681311..48002d0f68802958f856a2a15cb41b079e355e88

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 14:57:30 -0800

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

In reading this, I realized that we are assuming that this assumes that keeping the connection ID is a permissible option.  It isn't.  I'll file a follow-up.

-- 
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/2386#discussion_r253680018

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 01:13:00 -0800

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

-that has not been used on any other network path.  The goal here is to ensure
-that packets sent on different paths cannot be correlated. To fulfill this
-privacy requirement, endpoints that initiate migration and use connection IDs
-with length greater than zero SHOULD provide their peers with new connection IDs
-before migration.
-
-Caution:
-
-: If both endpoints change connection ID in response to seeing a change in
-  connection ID from their peer, then this can trigger an infinite sequence of
-  changes.
+Endpoints that supply connection IDs with length greater than zero could have
+their activity correlated if their peers keep using the same destination
+connection ID after migration.  To ensure that packets sent on different paths
+cannot be correlated, endpoints SHOULD provide with new connection IDs before

```suggestion
cannot be correlated, endpoints SHOULD supply new connection IDs to their peers before the peers migrate.
```

And drop the rest of this paragraph, I don't think it adds anything.

-- 
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/2386#pullrequestreview-199970145

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 03:23:26 -0800

#2414 might be the better PR to review then.  I've removed the duplicated text.

-- 
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/2386#discussion_r253824180

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 05:38:10 -0800

I like the text there better, I've left a comment as well. Do you want to close this PR off in favor of that 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/2386#discussion_r253864931

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 15:08:26 -0800

This should close when that does.  Closing this might have side-effects.

-- 
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/2386#discussion_r254083856