Subject: Consensus Calls for Transport/TLS issues, pre-Singapore

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:25:46 +1100

The following issues have proposals for resolution, and discussion so far seems to support consensus to accept them. If you object, please do so on the issue or in response to this message (changing the Subject appropriately!). Absent any pushback, we'll direct the editors to incorporate them late next week. Note that by default we won't discuss these issues in Singapore, unless something comes up.

See <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/projects/5> for the current state of issues in the Late Stage process, itself defined at <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md>.

* #3127: NEW_TOKEN and Retry tokens must be distinguishable
  Proposal: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3128

* #3158: Application close should be disallowed in Initial or Handshake
  Proposal: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3164

* #3155: The method of identifying "the same server"
  Proposal: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3156

* #2475: Invalid CONNECTION_CLOSE frames
  Proposal: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3231

* #3168: Allow servers to close connections immediately when the token is corrupted
  Proposal: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3107

* #3194: reordered NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames with retired sequence numbers shouldn't be used
  Proposal: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3202

* #3014: Handling of corrupt Retry packets
  Proposal: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3120

* #3095: Backoff of CONNECTION_CLOSE needs to be a MUST
  Proposal: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3157

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 09:51:12 +0100

I added a comment to

 #3155: The method of identifying "the same server"

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3156/files#r346186298

I’m not sure the MUST / SHOULD is correct in this case. Although I do agree
that server identify should not be limited to server certificates (I
proposed that myself).

Mikkel

On 14 November 2019 at 02.26.05, Mark Nottingham ([email-masked]) wrote:

The following issues have proposals for resolution, and discussion so far
seems to support consensus to accept them. If you object, please do so on
the issue or in response to this message (changing the Subject
appropriately!). Absent any pushback, we'll direct the editors to
incorporate them late next week. Note that by default we won't discuss
these issues in Singapore, unless something comes up.

See <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/projects/5> for the current
state of issues in the Late Stage process, itself defined at <
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md>.

* #3168: Allow servers to close connections immediately when the token is
corrupted
Proposal: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3107

* #3194: reordered NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames with retired sequence numbers
shouldn't be used
Proposal: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3202

---

From: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:27:32 +0100

Kazuho pointed out that the MUST is a privacy concern for the client, so it
does make sense.

On 14 November 2019 at 09.51.12, Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen ([email-masked])
wrote:

I added a comment to

Mikkel

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:58:12 -0800

I think some changes are in order in 3155 and 3014. Comments made in the PR

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 07:58:43 +0700

I commented on #3107 a couple of days ago:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3107#pullrequestreview-321895279.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 11:54:34 +1100

Consensus declared for all *except* #3014; we'll continue to discuss that.

Cheers,

> On 14 Nov 2019, at 12:25 pm, Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:
>