Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remove recommendation to not include tokens (#4089)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:16:41 -0700

This is another judgment call, but as this wasn&#39;t a MUST in the first
place, we weren&#39;t really preventing an attack.  This just removes the
recommendation to remove NEW_TOKEN tokens from Initial packets to new
server addresses.

It leaves the generic guidance, which is far more nuanced.

I&#39;ve added some commentary about the effect of withholding tokens on
performance, as it seems like that is worth highlighting here.

All in all, this leans more toward saying that request forgery is not
the responsibility of QUIC deployments.

Closes #4076.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4089

-- Commit Summary --

  * Remove recommendation to not include tokens

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (14)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4089.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4089.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/4089

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 09:15:22 -0700

@ianswett approved this pull request.

Thanks @martinthomson, greatly appreciated.

-- 
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/4089#pullrequestreview-486099921

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:07:42 -0700

@DavidSchinazi approved this pull request.

-- 
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/4089#pullrequestreview-486232038

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:24:18 -0700

@janaiyengar approved this pull request.

One nit.

> @@ -6521,15 +6521,11 @@ attacks that rely on the Token field can be avoided if clients send an empty
 Token field when the server address has changed from when the NEW_TOKEN frame
 was received.
 
-Therefore, clients SHOULD NOT send a token received in a NEW_TOKEN frame from
-one server address in an Initial packet that is sent to a different server
-address. As strict equality might reduce the utility of this mechanism, clients
-MAY employ heuristics that result in different server addresses being treated
-as equivalent, such as treating addresses with a shared prefix of sufficient
-length as being functionally equivalent (for instance, /24 in IPv4 or /56 in
-IPv6). In addition, clients SHOULD treat a preferred address that is
-successfully validated as equivalent to the address on which the connection was
-made; see {{preferred-address}}.
+Clients could avoid using NEW_TOKEN if the server address changes. However, not
+including a Token field could adversely affect performance. Servers could rely
+on NEW_TOKEN to enable sending of data in excess of the three times limit on
+sending data; see {{validate-handshake}}. In particular, this affects cases
+where clients use 0-RTT in order to request data from servers.

```suggestion
where clients use 0-RTT to request data from servers.
```

-- 
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/4089#pullrequestreview-486447647

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:53:40 -0700

@martinthomson pushed 1 commit.

560e56c154094e7883d0fd967bcbfc48e0b0eea3  Fewer words = good

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4089/files/f5d2d1af76d9205883d89dc3fc20963883eb7b1a..560e56c154094e7883d0fd967bcbfc48e0b0eea3

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 22:46:26 -0700

I'm merging this. If anyone thinks this ought to be dealt with differently, please say so on this PR or on the issue, and we can revisit.

-- 
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/4089#issuecomment-690888969

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 22:46:33 -0700

Merged #4089 into master.

-- 
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/4089#event-3754435809

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:32:00 -0700

Apologies for merging this PR. @LPardue @larseggert : we should still run #4076 through the process as a design issue.

-- 
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/4089#issuecomment-693014009