The subject info is what is known by the AS (in theory could be RO and maybe end-user, but notice that in the terminology, we define the end-user as a natural person and the RO as a subject entity). I think we should clarify when we could have a remote RO too. Then do we even return a result if the AS knows something about the end-user? (different from RO in that case). Plus we need to keep in mind that we also use sub_ids for URL In general, we might want to avoid the term "user" as it is not specific enough.
The title has been changed into "Requesting Subject information". This title is incorrect as long as a subject can be also an organization or a device. An AS can hold information about an end-user or about RO when the RO is a human being. It does not hold information about organizations or devices. However, an end-user may belong to some organizations or/and use some devices. IMO, I would replace it by "Requesting end-user Information". If an AS holds information about an end-user, it seems logical that the end-user should have access to it. If it happens that the end-user has also a RO account on the AS, then it should also have access to it. In such a case, another section with the following title "Requesting RO Information" should be created. RO = end-user was a common case in OAuth. In GNAP and in the general case a RO is different from an end-user and an AS may have no relationship with any RO (e.g. when attributes only are being used).
I guess you refer to "2.2. Requesting Subject Information". We might have to harmonize a bit, but for instance "2.3. Identifying the Client Instance" might very well hold information about devices or at least the software running on it (that's the point of client software attestation to be discussed in ) We don't always know in advance whether it will be a RO or an end-user only, so the proposal isn't always applicable.
I was indeed referring to "2.2. Requesting Subject Information" which has no relationship with "2.3. Identifying the Client Instance".


This means that your arguments do not apply to section 2.2. and, by implication, that my argumentation currently remains valid.
Well, I take the point in consideration but I don't think we should base our reasoning on the structure of sections, which can change
Identifying the User by Reference: Editor's note: We might be able to fold this function into an unstructured user assertion reference issued by the AS to the RC. We could put it in as an assertion type of "gnap_reference" or something like that. Downside: it's more verbose and potentially confusing to the client developer to have an assertion-like thing that's internal to the AS and not an assertion.
Why an assertion? Is that reference supposed to be linked to a session (cf "represent the same end-user to the AS over subsequent requests") or can it be persistent? I would see that more as an opaque identifier, rather than an assertion. Something like: asref seems a bit specific to GNAP (reference managed by the AS) but it could always be read "as a reference" in a more general setting. There's a variety of generic names that we could choose if needed, localuid, internal_uid, etc. But that really asks what additional types we could define as part of secevents (section 7.1.2). Beyond the case mentioned here, it would be most useful as an opaque identifier when RO != end-user, to avoid leaking private info about the RO (although currently we don't seem to cover that case yet) It's indeed more verbose than "user": "XUT2MFM1XBIKJKSDU8QM" but at least it's always the same structure (doesn't depend whether it's a reference or not), and it also makes the type more explicit.
A subject identifier makes sense here, and I agree that it should be a new value to let us constrain it to the GNAP context.
Fixed by SECEVENT opaque identifiers
I don't think this goes far enough -- I am thinking that with the opaque identifiers we can now simply return a with a format of that the client can be allowed to send in a follow-up request if it wants to. This way they all get treated equally, there's no special field anymore.


The link was missing from schema. After this is merged, all the example need to be regenerated.
Given we want the l to have a defined integer value in the CBOR table, I think a good approach is define the l attribute as a string here then say what goes in it in the other draft that defines link. This is also good for EXI.


This PR adapts the Welcome logic so that the new joiners get their path secrets directly, rather than from a DirectPath. This cleans things up in a few ways. The new joiners no longer have to have the context for the previous epoch (which was used to encrypt the DirectPath). And we can get away with one HPKE operation per new joiner instead of two (one for the EncryptedKeyPackage and one for the DirectPath). The major cost is that there's a bit more complexity in the TreeKEM. Instead of just producing and consuming DirectPaths, you now need to know which path secrets go with which nodes. You also need tree math to identify the common ancestor of two leaves, but there's a simple closed-form formula for that, expressed in the Python code here.
NAME - Curious if this seems implementable to you. Clearly it's possible, since I did it in Go :) But it also needs to make sense to other people.


Dave's comments: The issue is that neither of the above have an asterisk by them, so both are recommended and per Carsten’s definition of “units” during the meeting (i.e., where the reference point is separate from the units), then Kelvin and Celsius have the same units as they only vary by what the reference point is.


Fixes issue
Sect. 7 in transport refers to packer number spaces without any reference to what that might mean. These are only introduced later in sect. 12.3. Also the text talks about crypto sequence numbers and the text is not very clear about these being different from packet numbers if you haven't been through TLS text.
This is still an issue. I think adding references to where packet number spaces are mentioned (List of Common Terms and Section 7) would be sufficient.
Sounds great, would you be willing to write a PR NAME
Fixed in .


Create MAC as separate key operations per issue
Should we attempt to add the MACverify and MACcreate elements to the key_ops field since we have decided to distinguish between a signature and a MAC - or do we keep the same signature/verify tags that are currently used in the JWK document?


The set of constraints for the host description includes a constrain that A and AAAA records must be of sufficient scope. This is asking a bit much of the SRP server, which may or may not be able to make this determination. There may also be cases where an SRP registration with an address of less than global scope is useful. Consequently, this constraint is removed, and text added to talk about how servers should deal with addresses of less-than-global scope.


I'm going to guess that order is not significant. But imagine that an endpoint would only honor a request for N addresses but the requester asks for N+Y. The endpoint has to pick a subset somehow.
What do you mean by "is the list ... significant"? I don't understand the comment about subsetting either --- if you ask for N+Y addresses and get back only N, you have N usable addresses (ranges)
How does the other end decide the which N to pick? Without declaring if the request order is significant, then there can be no expectations of behaviour and we might find interop problems if assumptions don't align.
If you request, say, 4 specific addresses, and the other side can satisfy 3 of the requests because they're still available, it will include those 3. It's implementation-defined it if wants to provide a 4th address that is not the one you requested, or NAK it. However at no point in time was order significant --- you asked for all of these addresses, not any of these addresses.
Friendly amendment: it may include those 3. It could also choose to only assign one, or a different address entirely if the implementation was so inclined.
You are pedantically correct :). I was trying to give a specific worked example.
This design seems reasonable. It might help to state clearly somewhere that the value of the request ID has no significance other than as a unique handle, and that the ordering of and in a single capsule has no significance. This is in contrast to the ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT where the ordering of things is very significant.
That's a good suggestion Lucas.
My intention when writing this was for the order in the lists to not carry semantics, and similarly for the request ID to only exist for unicity. We should spell that out clearly. One thing we could do however, is saying that request IDs in ADDRESS_REQUEST MUST be increasing, to make duplicate detection easier on the receiver. If we do it, it adds a constraint on the sender and means that the receiver will check, while if we don't add the constraint then receivers won't bother to check. Any thoughts on this point?
I have no strong feeling about the potential to add such rules.
NAME can you propose text here?


The IANA section was added before the QUIC registries had a notion of permanent vs provisional, and we then forgot to update it. This PR fixes that oversight.
Latest change looks good to me
Noticed during Shepherd review. All of the core types registered in RFC 9000 simply link to the relevant document (RFC 9000) and section in the document where the protocol element is defined. In contrast, in datagram's IANA considerations section, the transport parameter and frame type registrations include the required field with some text that is already included in the document. This will manifest as a weird juxtaposition in the IANA table. I suggest you simply reference the section 3 and section 4 respectively. If you really want some prose (I don't recommend that) then it can be added as a note to the table.
I noticed that when writing and I agree, we should just list "This specification" in there as most RFCs do.
Noticed during the shepherd writeup of IANA considerations: The document is attempting to register: maxdatagramframe_size Transport Parameter with value 0x0020 DATAGRAM frame type with values 0x30 and 0x31 According to IANA (URL) registrations can be of different types. Here the requested values are in the bracket. So I suggest that the document state clearly that this is a request for permanent registration of these types.
Agreed. Wrote up to fix this.
LGTM, thanks!


Written in response to
From in reference to the text in this PR: Issues ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-listen (+0/-2/0) 2 issues closed: Improve document title URL [editorial] Should "connect-udp-listen" be registered as "Connect-UDP-Listen"? URL ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-quic-proxy (+0/-0/2) 1 issues received 2 new comments: Virtual connection IDs in multi-hop settings (2 by DavidSchinazi, mirjak) URL Pull requests ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-listen (+2/-2/1) 2 pull requests submitted: Update Listener to bind (by asingh-g) URL update connect-udp-listen to use H1 style (by asingh-g) URL 1 pull requests received 1 new comments: Compress away IP and Port using Context IDs (1 by asingh-g) URL 2 pull requests merged: Update Listener to bind ( URL update connect-udp-listen to use H1 style, URL ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-quic-proxy (+0/-0/3) 1 pull requests received 3 new comments: Proxy-Chosen Virtual Client Connection ID (3 by DavidSchinazi, ehaydenr) URL Repositories tracked by this digest: URL URL URL URL URL URL URL
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to URL for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: URL COMMENT: Thank you to David Mandelberg for the SECDIR review. ** Section 4. Consider adding the following clarification: NEW HTTP Datagrams and the Capsule Protocol are building blocks for HTTP extensions to define new behaviors or features and do not constitute an independent protocol. Any extension adopting them will need to perform an appropriate security analysis which considers the impact of these features in the context of a complete protocol.


Use 'on a control stream' instead of 'on either control stream'. This is consistent with the changes made by .


Reworded 2nd and 3rd paragraphs
` Is there a different way to say this? I assume in Passport, we’re not relying on the Attester to report itself as untrustworthy? I think it’s more that it doesn’t get a passport, so it has nothing to hand the dude at the immigration desk? i.e. untrustworthiness is indicated by lack of a passport?
The paragraph should begin with "An Attestation Result that indicates ..." The Relying Party is always the entity / role that consumes the Attestation Result. The text that describes the Attester (in the passport model) technically violates the role interaction model. Instead, the refusal on behalf of an Attester (acting as a proxy for the Attestation Result) to convey the AR is a protocol or interaction break down scenario. And yes it is correct for the Relying Party to, by default, assume that lack of receipt of an Attestation Result means the Attester is presumed to be non-compliant. If the paragraph stated this simply up front then we can avoid dove tailing it into the description of what constitutes non-compliance behavior. For example, paragraph 2 could start differently: "By default the Relying Party assumes the Attester does not comply with Verifier appraisals. Upon receipt of an authentic Attestation Result and given the Appraisal Policy for Relying Party is satisfied. The Attester's state of compliance changes to be in compliance and actions consistent with compliance may be applied. If the Appraisal Policy for Relying Party is not satisfied, actions consistent with non-compliance may be applied. For example, the Attester may require remediation and re-configuration or simply may be denied further access." The third paragraph seems redundant to this (and somewhat wordy).


I believe these two cases are both 3*PTO to allow the PTO to expire at least once before declaring path validation failure and idle timeout.
Thanks for your suggestions, I'm quite happy with this now.
NAME says in : This is reasonable. I don't know which document needs the text though.
This looks like it should go into -recovery, since -transport mostly only refers to as a TP, except in Section 13.2.1 ("sending-acknowledgements"), but that text is very general.
I would suggest that this should go where a value of X PTOs is suggested for each specific timer.
Relabeling, since ended up being against -transport and not -recovery.


Can an ALPN label be used for multiple QUIC versions? I think that the text should say something like: NAME adds (and I wholly agree):
I'm merging into this one where NAME said "The point is that your ALPN offer when you offer QUICvX shouldn't be dependent on if you did VN or not."
LGTM


This seems fine to me, but doesn't seem to include URL
NAME after trying to work that text in it became clear (to me) that a better outcome was modify the existing text we have about anonymity set reduction. So I went with that approach rather than open the can of consistency worms that NAME alluded to.
Let's say HPKE public key A was valid from 2022-07-01 to 2022-07-02. The client encapsulates a request X using pubkey A, but buffers it because of network issues, in order to retry later. Now it rotates and public key B is valid as of 2022-07-03. X encapsulated using pubkey A would not be decryptable by pubkey B. So if you receive X on 2022-07-03, then you know that X was generated between 2022-07-01 and 2022-07-02.
I'm not inclined to add this. "Don't do that" seems pretty obvious to me, especially when we recommend that requests include a Date.
While this advice seems fine, I agree that it's not really necessary. It also brings up more questions to me — what stops any layer below the OHTTP layer or an intermediary from arbitrarily buffering messages? Maybe just have a note that the key config that's used as well as explicit date markings can leak the time that the request was generated?
This seems like a reasonable way to deal with the problem. Liveness information can leak in a number of places, including through noting which public key was used. It might also leak via the date. Maybe this can become part of the differential treatment section?
That sounds good to me
I think that while this text is true, I believe that it is also unnecessary. Discussion of key liveness are dealt with in the key-consistency draft, so this is really about requests that are transmitted well after they are constructed. If we start to document that, there are lots of other things that start to come up.
I agree, but the content I'm proposing here relates to how liveness affects differential treatment. We've already noted a few key ways in which this can happen, so it seems pretty harmless to me to include one more. I don't think we need to say anything more about how to deal with liveness or how it pertains to consistency. I'll propose some text to make this more clear. No more than one sentence.


Satisfies
looks good.
Should we hold the addition of this until we have something that depends on it being in the API?
We certainly can, although if we want to use a key as discussed in the WG meeting for the purposes of ICMP validation, having a way to add a key here is nice for removing a bootstrapping step. Hopefully we can get an updated ICMP document out with the API document, and they can reference one another in this way.
Discussed in London, remove this.
accepted


Some grammar fixes POST-as-GETs should be indicated as having a signature in flow Specify that the JWS profile we define in Section 6.2 is for ACME request bodies, to distinuish it from the profile used for External Account Binding. They have incompatible requirements: MUST NOT use MAC vs MUST use MAC. Clarify that Replay-Nonce is an HTTP header field since it's defined near JWS header parameters. Don't include "wildcard": false in examples. Section 7.1.4 requires that it MUST be absent when false. There was lingering language in the Section 7.5.1 about "updating" an authorization body in response to fields in a challenge POST. Since the challenge POST is now described explicitly as "an empty JSON body", this language didn't make sense. Fixed.
Per offline review, I added back in a sentence that contained a MUST:


Also, delete a term which is used only in the definition of the next term. Fixes URL
I only found the two occurrences you suggested changing. If there are others, please let me know!
Sometimes the spec uses "Singular Query" and sometimes "singular query". We should be consistent. (If we decide to use lower case, it's probably best to address this issue after PR has been merged, since that PR adds some usages of "Singular Query".) Also, there is one instance of "Logical context", which I think would be better uncapitalised ("logical context").
Thanks.


TLS authentication is sufficient for establishing trust in the various entities before sending them privacy sensitive data. TLS is also widely supported today and attestation between servers is not. Most likely TLS will be the mechanism. This PR adds mention to in addition to attestation.
Addresses
says that the way for an Endorser to trust and Verifier is to use attestation. While I won't categorically say this should never be done, it seems like this is overly complex and a somewhat misuse of attestation. I think of the Verifier as a service like a web site, not an implementation like a TEE, so TLS or similar, not attestations, seems like the more efficient and conventional way to do this. I think attestation is associated with actual HW and SW, for example the Dell server, Intel CPU and Web stack used to run the service. The operator of a Verifier gets to change those around without having to tell the people using the service. On the other hand, if a Verification Service changes owners, say from Chinese to American, then Endorser concerned about confidential stuff in the Endorsements really wants to know. I also think that Verifier Owner should not be lumped in with Endorser. The Verifier Owner is very likely to be tightly coupled organizationally with the Verifier, where the Endorser is not likely to be.
PR addresses this well enough.
Reviewing the trust relationships described in the architecture document got me thinking about sharpening a distinction between device attestation (e.g., EAT for phone) and service authenticity (e.g. HTTPS for a web site): Device Attestation Focus is on the implementation, the HW and SW The legal entity of interest is the device manufacturer The claims are about the HW and the SW, not the device owner Example: a mobile phone (not its owner/user) Example: integrity of a remote device Service Authenticity Focus is on the provider of the service, not the HW or SW The legal entity of interest is the service provider There is no equivalent of claims, but if there was they would be about the business or person operating the service Example: a web site Example: an email provider (IMAP service) Service providers (e.g., web sites) use whatever HW and SW they want to use. As a user of the service we don’t care what HW and SW they select.


We trust the service provider to pick good HW and SW and to configure and operate it correctly. They might change the HW and the SW and as a user we won’t know. For example we trust Bank of Xxx to operate their banking web site correctly with little concern for their HW. This is why attestation of the HW and SW is not so useful to the user of a service. Users of mobile phones and IoT devices are not trustworthy to pick secure HW and SW. They are not professionals like the people running web sites. There is little accountability against them if they pick bad SW and HW. Therefor we want attestation for these usage scenarios. This is why EAT, FIDO and Android Attestation exist. I don’t think the line between device attestation and service authenticity is completely black and white. In some use cases attestation may be bent to provide some service authenticity. But I don’t think it makes sense to add attestation to the millions of web sites out there, add support for it to browsers and make attestation an extra layer of security for web browsing. I think it is fine for a service provider to use attestation inside their service to monitor integrity and such of the HW and SW providing the service. But usually that won’t be manifest outside the service. It could be awkward for the user to the service to have to re evaluate the service every time the service provider changes HW. Another way to look at this is from a certification / regulatory view. If the thing you're looking at is a candidate for implementation certification such as Common Criteria, FIPS, FIDO certification, then it probably lines up with device attestation. On the other hand, if the thing your are looking at lines up with regulation (e.g., banking regulation, GDPR,...) and to some degree OWASP, then it probably lines up with service authenticity. I think the RATS architecture document should probably have text that describes when attestation is applicable and when it is not, for example saying something like “attestation is not a replacement or augmentation for HTTPS/TLS"
In the last editors session, the editor's rough consensus was that https does not provide the authenticity but it provides a secure channel. Instead, authenticity is checked via successful authentication rooted in identity documents (I hope I captured appropriately, please bash).


Taking that into account, how does this effect this issue? Looking at the last paragraph, "Remote attestation procedures are not a replacement for secure authentication, they are based on secure authentication." might be missing vital parts. Does anything need to be added or modified here?
Note that is INCORRECTLY referenced here. Is the resolution of a different issue about HTTPS vs Attestation.
I think comments from NAME do need to be taken into account when the text to address this issue is written. My text in opening the issue is not intended as the text to resolve the issue. Probably the text that resolves the issue needs to refer to "HTTPS plus the web certificate infrastructure that includes public CA's and browsers and/or private CA's used in B-to-B..." or such.
I think the RATS architecture document should probably have text that describes when attestation is applicable and when it is not, for example saying something like “attestation is not a replacement or augmentation for HTTPS/TLS" The design team disagrees with this. Every authentication (including HTTPS) can be said in terms of attestation. It is the verifier that allows the decoupling of the RP to know the expected state of the Attester.


TBH I don't really know if this is actually needed.
Whoops that was supposed to be about it's good to merge. We need this section to tell IANA to register the exporter.
NAME do you mind amending this to add:
Added section about exporter labels as well.


Addresses
The architecture draft uses UDP checksums as an example of a protocol-specific property in Section 3.2 and 4.1.2. I find this a bit confusing because in the Interface draft, checksum coverage is a Generic Connection Property (Section 11.1.2). Should we maybe use a different example of a protocol-specific property, such as the TCP User Timeout we have in the Interface draft?
Sure, we can switch the example around
Thanks, LGTM!Thanks – works


I actually really like: "Simultaneous" and "Staggered" as descriptive terms that avoid the question of "delaying".
Opening this to follow up on a comment by NAME on that is now closed. "Simultaneous" and "Staggered" would be better names than "Immediate" and "Delayed". Just from these terms, I would normally think that "Immediate" means to start racing right away, whereas "Delayed" means that nothing would happen for some time. So these two terms are slightly misleading in my opinion.)
I agree this would be an improvement.
In Section 4.2.1., I didn't really understand what "immediate" means from the text. I think it just needs one sentence.
lgtm (side note - nothing blocking, this is just an idea: to me, "Simultaneous" and "Staggered" would be better names than "Immediate" and "Delayed". Just from these terms, I would normally think that "Immediate" means to start racing right away, whereas "Delayed" means that nothing would happen for some time. So these two terms are slightly misleading in my opinion.)Looks good, thanks! I will close this and open a separate issue for the naming.


Skirts the editorial/design line. Previously, DUPLICATEPUSH referred to a Push ID in a previously-sent PUSHPROMISE frame; that frame would have caused a connection error on arrival. This says that the error should be sent regardless of which frame arrives first. May need reconciling with .
Two questions: Should DUPLICATEPUSH respect max push ID limit? PUSHPROMISE says the following: provided in a MAXPUSHID frame (Section 4.2.8) and MUST NOT use the same Push ID in multiple PUSHPROMISE frames What should a client do if it sees a DUPLICATEPUSH for an ID of a PUSHPROMISE that it never received? This could be caused by a race condition, so it seems sensible to allow this to clients to support this without error. We should probably document that like we did for other racy things. E.g. a Push ID that has not yet been mentioned by a PUSHPROMISE frame.
(2) is covered in : For (1), yes it should -- the DUPLICATE might show up first, but the implication is that the ID has already been used in a PUSHPROMISE frame. If that would be invalid, we should be explicit that the DUPLICATEPUSH is also invalid.
SGTM
I think that we have a frame name problem, otherwise, this is fine.I think some wires got crossed in the suggested changes. Your comment points out that this might need reconciliation with but it seems to borrow the text directly from that PR. The outcome is that this PR is inconsistent with itself because at line the same error with PUSHPROMISE causes a MALFORMEDFRAME. I think the best path is to make this change be a MALFORMED_FRAME error and reconcile on if the group want that change.


There are two ClientHelloInners, the actual one used in the handshake, and the encoded one with outerextensions substituted in. Both are described as ClientHelloInner, but this makes it slightly ambiguous which goes into, say, the handshake transcript. (It's late now, so I'll leave this as an issue without a PR. If we don't end up resolving this separately, I'll probably fix this as part of . If we decide to implicitly copy over legacysession_id, the encryption payload becomes less and less defensibly an actual ClientHelloInner.)
In my own implementation, I've been referring to the plaintext payload as CompressedClientHelloInner. Which is terrible, but unambiguous.
Works for me. I was thinking EncodedClientHelloInner because it's shorter and still works even if you choose not to compress anything. (A no-op encoding is still an encoding.)
+1 to EncodedClientHelloInner, given that compression is optional. NAME if you have time, could you whip up a PR?
I noticed this while drafting a PR for . We're a little inconsistent about whether the ClientHelloInner or ClientHelloOuter is constructed first. Section 4 says inner before outer: Section 5.1 implies inner before outer: But section 6.1 says outer before inner: I think inner before outer makes more sense. You certainly can't finish the outer one before you've computed the inner one. (Of course, an implementation can pick whatever order is most convenient, but I think the spec should be consistent with itself.)


Further security considerations about how message content is protected against manipulation. Perhaps something like this: "Manipulations of message1 may not be detected at reception since there is no MAC but, since message1 is included in TH2, if I and R disagree on message1 then subsequent PRKs and MACs will be different. Manipulations of other messages are detected at reception through the MACs, except for manipulation of the encrypted padding of message2, since PAD2 is not integrity protected."
I made a PR for this
I merged to prepare for submission on -15. is just a simple clarification.
The selfie attack mitigation implies that an initiator is stopping the exchange if it receives its own identity. An active attacker can then use this behavior to test if an initiator identity is the same one as a responder identity. In turn, it implies that the initiator anonymity does not hold against an active attacker when this mitigation is enabled. To judge if this is an issue in practice, the following question should be answered: Are there scenarios where an identity is shared between an initiator and a receiver, but the initiator identity should still be protected? One could maybe think about the case where multiple initiators and receivers are on the same server, sometimes sharing public keys and using distinct ports, but it is expected that the initiators identities are still protected. Possible actions: mention privacy loss due to the selfie attack mitigation. update the selfie attack mitigation, by mentioning that initiators should conclude the exchange as usual, but can check at the end whether they are talking to themselves or not. remove the selfie attack mitigation. Classical selfie attacks are when there is a pre-shared key between an initiator and a receiver, and the initiator will be talking to itself while it believes to be talking to the receiver. When there are only public keys, as in EDHOC, it is unclear to me if what is currently called in the draft is indeed a selfie attack. An initiator talking to itself knows it and does not believe to be talking to some other identity. As such this is why it could be possible to either remove the mention of selfie attacks in the draft, or update it.
I and R are expected to stop the exchange it they receive any identity they do not want to talk to. This likely includes their own identity. Good point that this leaks information. I think that should be added, but I don't see that the own identity is special.


>Classical selfie attacks are when there is a pre-shared key between an initiator and a receiver, >and the initiator will be talking to itself while it believes to be talking to the receiver. >When there are only public keys, as in EDHOC, it is unclear to me if what is currently >called in the draft is indeed a selfie attack. The selfie attack mitigation is intended for Trust On First Use (TOFU) use cases, where there is no authentication in the initial setup. I don't think an initiator talking to itself in a TOFU use case would not know it except if they checked R's public key. Do you some better suggestion than "Selfie attack". I agree that it is not perfect. "Selfie attacks" has in older papers been called reflection attacks, but the term reflection attacks has also been used for very different attacks. One option is to not give the attack any name and instead just describe the attack.
I think I like to not give any name, as it does not perfectly match the classical definition. Here, the property which is violated is "If an EDHOC exchange is completed, two distinct identities/computers/agents were active". Which is different to violating the authentication of the protocol as is the case in classical selfie attacks. Good point. So what we are talking about in this issue is a slightly different privacy leak, which happens when the set of parties you are willing to talk to is equal to all responders minus yourself. To be more concrete, let me try to put it in a kind of drafty formal description that could replace the existing formulation. First the existing formulation: Now a possible replacement:
Thanks for the input! This issue is related to the TOFU use case which is still to be detailed (Appendix D.5). We probably should wait with the update until we have progressed that.
Relates to
I made PR for this issue. This is also related to PR and PR . The suggested text in is largely based on the suggested text above but I made some changes. I did not think this fitted well with the rest of the draft. The sentence was also not really needed. This is only true in the case where the set of identifiers is a small finite set. In the general case the set of identifiers the Initiator is not willing to communicate with is infinite.


I suggest to add the following recommendation for TOFU To not leak any long-term identifiers, it is recommended to use a freshly generated authentication key as identity in each initial TOFU exchange.
I merged the PR to master. Keeping the issue open for a while.


This PR looks good to me.
cTLS enumerates keys in the template, but does not explain how templates can be extended. Suggestion: Clients must reject the whole template if it contains any key they do not understand. The “optional” key holds a map of optional extensions that are safe to ignore.
Thanks for addressing your own issue with a PR. Creating an IANA registry for the keys used in the configuration data makes sense. I would, however, like to point out (and maybe we need to make this explicit) that the configuration information is defined for convenience but is not a mandatory-to-implement functionality for a stack.
Sure, some use cases can pre-arrange, or even hardcode, a specific configuration through a nonstandard channel. Some use cases (where the client and server are developed separately) obviously cannot.


That term doesn't appear above, so don't use it in the PTO section.
Thanks NAME I took your suggestions with one tweak.
Section 6.2.1: "The probe timer MUST NOT be set if the time threshold (Section 6.1.2) loss detection timer is set. The time threshold loss detection timer is expected to both expire earlier than the PTO and be less likely to spuriously retransmit data." What does "MUST NOT be set" means. The time threshold loss detection 6.1.2 only occurs if there is acknowledgement received by the sender sufficient late after the transmission. Thus, PTO timer needs to always be set. because even if Time Threshold timer fires it might not declare a loss.
It means if the time threshold timer is armed, you are not supposed to arm the PTO timer. If the Time Threshold timer fires and doesn't declare a loss, then I would consider that a bug.
So the above text about loss timer is only when one are under the condition created by this Section 6.1.2 sentence? "If packets sent prior to the largest acknowledged packet cannot yet be declared lost, then a timer SHOULD be set for the remaining time." Does the formulation in 6.1.2 need to be improved, possibly naming the timer?
I can see the confusion. This can either be a single timer or multiple, and sometimes we refer to it one way and sometimes as separately named timers, ie "The time threshold loss detection timer" We can either be more consistent about naming the timers or stop naming the timers entirely. Would you prefer the former?
Frankly I don't know which direction that is best. Could I ask you to take an editorial stab on your most preferred. I would guess when you sit down to do either you realize if it will work or not when you harmonize it.
NAME Does PR resolve this for you?
NAME we'd need a response, please
Yes, that simple tweak do make it clearer. So resolved.
The second suggestion is a little risky, but avoids a slightly awkward construction.Editorial suggestion. I'm fine with merging this, but NAME should probably see if it addresses his issue.


This is mainly editorial, so there should be nothing surprising here. Please let me if that's not the case! It also includes clarifying text per NAME recommendation raised during WGLC. cc NAME NAME
From Rob Sayre: We should note the latter is a requirement from Section 4.2.11 of RFC8446. Let's also fix the typo "import external keys for TLS..."


Should the upgrade token be "connect-udp" or "masque-udp" ? (issue based on by NAME
I vote for or something along those lines. "MASQUE" is good as a working group name, but I don't think it's helpful in the protocol to help people understand what the variant of CONNECT does.


NAME you wrote: That sounds like you want to restrict the multipath extension to only one server address (but potentially different paths from different clients address)...? I think this restriction is unnecessary. Yes we don't specify a way to learn server addresses but that doesn't means that the client doesn't know (e.g. based on higher layer information) multiple addresses of the server. What should we restrict that?
However, can we maybe merge this PR as it is for now and you open a separate issue for your additional point NAME ?
Mirja, That was my understanding of the sentences in the PR. Maybe I got it wrong. I think that we should discuss the role of preferred address in section 3 where we explain how paths can be opened.
Fine, let's do it this way.
RFC9000 defines a list of transport parameters. 0x01 0x02 0x03 0x04 0x05 0x06 0x07 0x08 0x09 0x0a 0x0b 0x0c 0x0d 0x0e 0x0f 0x10 [QUICWG] These transport parameters apply to all the paths that compose a Multipath QUIC connection. We should probably confirm this in the mpquic draft to avoid any misinterpretation (e.g. for maxidletimeout or ack delays). There are two transport parameters that could warrant some discussion: disableactivemigration : This transport parameter is incompatible with enablemultipath. An endpoint that receives both this transport parameter and a non zero enablemultipath parameter MUST treat this as a connection error of type MPCONNECTIONERROR and close the connection. preferredaddress: RFC9000, section 9.2.1 contains the following: Once the handshake is confirmed, the client SHOULD select one of the two addresses provided by the server and initiate path validation (see Section 8.2). A client constructs packets using any previously unused active connection ID, taken from either the preferredaddress transport parameter or a NEWCONNECTION_ID frame. As soon as path validation succeeds, the client SHOULD begin sending all future packets to the new server address using the new connection ID and discontinue use of the old server address. If path validation fails, the client MUST continue sending all future packets to the server's original IP address.


For multipath, do we want to be stronger than SHOULD select one ? Can a client create news paths towards the initial address or only to one of the preferred addresses ? Should the client use both addresses (IPv4 and IPv6) if non-empty ?
Good point about "disableactivemigration". I would read it as also disabling multipath. We do not need to say that "transport parameters apply to all the paths that compose a Multipath QUIC connection". We are already inheriting that property from compatibility with path migration in RFC 9000. Multipath support is an extension to QUIC v1, not a new protocol, so we do not need to specify all the defaults. Same goes for the preferred address -- meaning does not change just because the nodes negotiate multipath. I would avoid debating "which server addresses the client can try" in the base multipath document. If we want the server to signal plausible addresses to the client, let's have a specific document for that.
I would maybe add a sentence that this draft does not change the meaning of preferred_address and if that address could also be used for multipath is out of scope for this extension.
Regarding disableactivemigration: this cannot be a connection error, as you can also send preferred address and after migration to the preferred address you can still use migration or multipath (if negotiated). I think the definition in RFC9000 is still valid; it means you can't send any packets from another address than the one used in the handshake. Which effectively means disabling multipath as well as Christian noted (if not moved to another preferred address). I guess we could explicitly note that this draft does not change the definition of disableactivemigration. For your reference this is what RFC9000 says:
I created a PR in . Is this sufficient to address this issue or do we need to say more? NAME ?
The proposed PR sounds good to me, with the slight addition I mentioned.


This was raised during the Reviewer: Qin Wu Review result: Has Issues I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document describes a version negotiation mechanism that allows a client and server to select a mutually supported version. The mechanism can be further broke down into incompatible Version Negotiation and compatible Version Negotiation. I believe this document is on the right track and but worth further polished with the following editorial comments. Major Issues: No Minor Issues: 1. Section 4 introduce verson downgrade term [Qin]What the version downgrade is? I feel confused, does it mean when I currently use new version, I should not fall back to the old version? Can you explain how version downgrade is different from version incompatible? It will be great to give a definition of version downgrade in the first place or provide an example to explain it? 2. Section 9 said: " The requirement that versions not be assumed compatible mitigates the possibility of cross-protocol attacks, but more analysis is still needed here." [Qin] It looks this paragraph is incomplete, what else analysis should we provide to make this paragraph complete? 3. Section 10 [Qin]: I am not clear why not request permanent allocation of a codepoint in the 0-63 range directly in this document. In my understanding, provisional codepoint can be requested without any dependent document? e.g., Each vendor can request IANA for Vendor specific range. Secondly, if replacing provisional codepoint with permanent allocation, requires make bis for this document, I don't think it is reasonable. Nits: 1. Section 2 said: " For instance, if the client initiates a connection with version A and the server starts incompatible version negotiation and the client then initiates a new connection with .... " [Qin]Can the client starts incompatible version negotiation? if not, I think we should call this out, e.g., using RFC2119 language. 2.


Section 2, last paragraph [Qin] This paragraph is a little bit vague to me, how do we define not fully support? e.g., the server can interpret version A, B,C, but the server only fully implements version A,B, regarding version C, the server can read this version, but can not use this version, in other words, it is partially implemented, is my understanding correct? 3.Section 2.1 the new term "offered version" [Qin] Can you add one definition of offered versions in section 1.2, terminology section? To be honest, I still not clear how offered version is different from negotiated version? Also I suggest to add definitions of accepted version, deployed version as well in section 1.2? Too many terminologies, hard to track them in the first place. 4. Section 6 said: " it is possible for some application layer protocols to not be able to run over some of the offered compatible versions. " [Qin]I believe compatible versions is not pertaining to any application layer protocol, if yes, s/compatible versions/compatible QUIC versions 7.1 said: "For example, that could be accomplished by having the server send a Retry packet in the original version first thereby validating the client's IP address before" [Qin] Is Version first Version 1? If the answer is yes, please be consistent and keep using either of them instead of inter-exchange to use them. s/version first/version 1


I think without OOB all challenges use key-authorization "JWA" is not defined in this document. I think it can just be omitted
NAME Thank you for the change! :smile:
Thanks again NAME I really appreciate your editing & the accompanying PRs! :-)


Move the list to the new transcript hash section. Note that EndOfEarlyData goes in the client Handshake Context.
lgtm


NAME NAME please have a look.
We also need to specify server-side HRR behavior, right? Specifically, the server MUST recheck the second ClientHello's ESNI extension before sending the server certificate, otherwise putting the key share into the AD field doesn't really mean anything. The attacker would be able to do a cut-and-paste thing. (We could also incorporate the nonce into key schedule, but that upsets the document's split mode use case.)
Yep! Thanks for bringing that up. I'll prepare text.
Thank you for the text. LGTM.


Variants is not a subsection of Constants; just have them all be subsections of same depth within Presentation Language URL


Minor nit while looking at ; the definition of generic "Long-Header Packets" won't actually match any real packet types, because it ends after the CIDs. This modifies the definition to add a final "Type-Specific Payload" section to the figure.
While the transport draft talks a lot about "1-RTT packets", the term is not defined. We also have a sentence that seem to imply that a long-header variant of 1-RTT packets might exist (URL). We refer to the packet less frequently as "short header packets" or "packet with a short header." As a resolution, I think we might want to change the title of section 17.3 from "Short Header Packets" to "1-RTT Packets". Rest of the text can remain the same, as the first sentence of that section says that it is the only type of short header packet that we define.


So a friendly pointer to detail that could be easily misinterpreted or missed? It seems like a table footnote is required but I'm not sure how to do that in Markdown.
While each frame's description indicates the stream type(s) on which it is allowed, there isn't one unified place to indicate which frames are expected on which streams. QPACK subdivides the instruction space per stream, which has the nice property that you can't put something on the wrong stream. While that's overkill for H3 (too dramatic a departure from H2, multiple IANA registries, etc.), having a table to indicate which frames are permitted on which streams would be helpful.
I like the table idea for both. Want a PR?
Text always welcome.
I'll submit two PRs in next day or so.
Minor nit; otherwise good. Given that we have two frames that fall into this camp, might it be worth doing something like "(*) = only as the first frame"?


The proposed text looks OK to me.
The ID said: “blocking or other interference by network elements such as firewalls” I think this language could be seen as having a little attitude that could be avoided. I suggest replacing “interference”, and instead say that this can change the forwarding policy. This also extends it to include action from QoS policies and service level agreements. “by network elements such as firewalls that rely on the port number for application identification.” I’d prefer “use” to “rely” … because they might well use other heuristics in future if they do prove more useful to classify sessions/packets.
Is the wording in better/good?


We have a registry called "supported groups", and the extension is "supported groups"; but each element is called a "named group" and the data passed in the extension is a "named group list". be consistent in our terminology.


Though this would likely be monstrously inadvisable, I am fairly confident that I could construct an interoperable (or at least deployable) extension to QUIC that works in QUICv1 but not QUICv2 or vice versa. It's OK to establish expectations, but some softening of the statement might help.
This seems very accurate


ip-over-tsn (nits) mpls-over-tsn (nits) tsn-vpn-over-mpls (nits, ch5.2, ch5.3)


This uses two JWS signatures to achieve the two-signature property during rollover, instead of using extra layers of encoding and embedding. It also simplifies the logic and splits it out into its own resource.


Saying it "terminates a stream" dangerously makes it sound like it has the same meaning as HTTP/2, which is false.
Thanks for all these little patches Martin, they are a real help.


note: when merged.
We should probably make it clear what the application can do here (SPA for servers; maybe intentional migration for clients?) I'm not sure if migration is transparent to client applications or not.
The client application might have some knowledge if it's behind a NAT or not and as such might want to indicate to use Conn ID or not. We can make that more explicit in the text.
I did some small edits on the text in the connection migration section but NAME maybe you had something more in mind and want to propose more text?
This whole section should then also be moved to after the Conn ID section.
I like the move of text to the manageability draft. If it were me, I'd move "Server-Generated Connection ID" as well, as I don't think apps need to worry about it, but it's not a big deal. I think adding text about server preferred address is probably more important for this draft.
Added some more text in
NAME we think the current state of the draft addresses this issue; could you check and close this issue if so?


First, these documents can now refer to the published QUIC RFCs. While doing that, let's just replace all [REF] with {{REF}}, which works better for our tooling. Lastly, lets brush up the cross references between documents a bit.
I checked this locally and everything was good. It's easy enough to fix up later if I did break something.
qlog alreaady refers to the -34 drafts. Nominally this change should be easy. Although some section references might need double checking.
lgtm, assuming that the build tool correctly sets the links to the RFCs


From Stephane:
Shouldn't the CA / cert hierarchy be a point of control? For example, KZ is requiring users to install their CA, to allow them to MITM all traffic: URL Another example of CA abuse is ROA whacking, RPKI manipulation, etc.: URL
Also got this feedback from Will Scott:


I agree with justin here. my bad for missing that.
The 4th bullet on page 64 is ambiguous at "this m= section". It looks like this bullet should just be merged with the previous bullet.
I'm not sure what the problem is here, but I'm not against merging it. NAME
The bullet point in question is the one that reads If this m= section was present in the previous answer then the state of RTP/RTCP multiplexing MUST match what was previously negotiated.
LGTM


Address .
The section on "Passive network performance measurement and troubleshooting" is probably a bit too pessimistic. It's probably worth pointing out that one part of network troubleshooting -- "find out which box to blame" -- is substantially easier. Thanks to integrity protection, most middleboxes, can drop, delay/rate limit, and corrupt, and that's about it. These are fairly easy behaviors to diagnose. I've had some conversations with customers afraid of not having their TCP headers anymore, and I believe this fear is largely misguided. If people agree this belongs in the draft, I can file a PR.
I agree the wording is very pessimistic. However, I don't think your observation belongs in this section because it's about measurement of performance metrics. There is a sentence in the introduction: "Given QUIC is an end-to-end transport protocol, all information in the protocol header, even that which can be inspected, is is not meant to be mutable by the network, and is therefore integrity-protected to the extent possible." Maybe it makes sense to add another sentence right there to also emphasis the positive effect of that, like: "While more limited information compared to TCP is visible to the network, integrity protection can also make troubleshooting easier as none of the nodes on the network path can modify the transport layer information."
LGTM, will fix Jana's suggestion manually.One nit, but LGTM. The nit is to avoid ambiguity that might arise from "transport" -- one might read that QUIC integrity-protects UDP headers as well, since those are technically transport.


This PR changes a few things: Introduces a TP for negotiating extension use Changes to Makes the fields required Specifies invalid values
I'm merging this, let's address issues in later PRs.
I think it'll be easier to make both parameters required. Not doing so saves 1 to 2 bytes, which is really not much in a frame I expect will be sent a few times a connection. Also, I think 0 should be an invalid value for both params, and 1 should be invalid for the number of packets, though I can see someone arguing that point.
addresses these issues, with the exception that 1 is allowed for packet tolerance. I think that's actually useful for some startup schemes, so we shouldn't disallow it.


From Vinny Parla on the :
Connect IP follows the same . We should probably spell that out somewhere. Similarly, we should remind implementers that they may need to treat link-local differently to avoid forwarding it, and that they may need to ensure they properly handle link-local multicast. Using ULAs is deployment-specific so I don't think anything needs to be said here: ULA isn't different from other IPv6 address blocks and we decided early on that addressing schemes are out of scope for this document Regarding RAs, I don't think anything needs to be said in this document since some deployments might want them while others might not Some additional review comments from an internal review that I wanted to share with you. Section 4.6 has a minor issue as the IANA registry mixes IPv6 extension header with layer-4 headers. It should also specify the use of RFC 5952 for representing IPv6 addresses. However, this can be ignored for now. Section 4.7.1 unsure whether "IP Version" field is useful as it can be derived from "IP Address" length/notation, also not critical but perhaps this would reduce unnecessary information. There is also a minimum 68-byte MTU for IPv4 ;-) - not sure that is important, but wanted to share. The recursive DNS server info (found in RA and DHCP), is not present. Was this an intentional decision or perhaps something that was not considered for some reason? There is no discussion of link-local addresses / ULA (I would expect both end of the 'tunnel' to have link-local addresses), or link-local multicast (e.g., ff02::1). Or perhaps the IP proxy send an IPv6 RA ? or should be prevented from sending one ? Should IP proxy reply to ff02::2 (all link-local routers), ... -Vinny


Addressing issues and to make the SUDN forwarding a SHOULD NOT unless the operator understands and accepts the implications to authenticated discovery.
This is exactly what was intended, so we're on the same page.
Migrated from original DEER issue: URL
The Special Use Domain Name (SUDN) URL needs more clarification. Specifically: Queries against the .arpa nameservers The draft should mention that .arpa is a delegated zone, currently served by the root nameservers. Clients that query a resolver that is unaware of this requirement will "leak" queries to the root nameservers. When URL is not present in a resolver configuration Section 6.1 discusses how a forwarder should behave and suggests that results should not be cached other than for Equivalent Encrypted Resolvers under their control. How is that determined? There is no discussion around a non-forwarding resolver's behaviour. Should it return NODATA? Forwarding queries to URL will attempt to attach a client to an upstream resource's equivalent resolver. If that equivalent resolver's cert doesn't include the forwarder, the client must reject the answer. Is it not therefore the case that the forwarder caching behaviour is irrelevant? All valid responses to this query must be equivalent to the forwarder itself. When URL is present in a resolver configuration I would suggest some clarification wording something like this: The expectation is that this record set will detail equivalent resolvers. A client that chooses not to interact with any of these equivalent resolvers SHOULD continue to use the unencrypted resolver, honouring the SVCB TTL. When the SVCB TTL expires, the client may choose to re-query in an attempt to discover newly available equivalents. I would suggest (prefer?) changing the SUDN behaviour so that queries against it are never sent upstream. Resolvers (and forwarders) that do not have a configured URL RRset should return NODATA. This would mean that URL SUDN RRsets are always specific to the IP queried.
It may be good to model the advice after RFC8880, which defines URL
I am leaving this open so I can re-review the text after addressing other PRs; PR 14 addressed some of the points raised in this issue but not all of them.
Migrated from original DEER issue: URL
The text says This is not true of any reasonable forwarder.


RRsets are atomic collections, and cannot be mixed from multiple sources. Doing so would entirely break DNSSEC, for example. Unless you know of a forwarder that exhibits this seriously broken behavior, I don't think it bears mentioning.
Addressed with PR 14
Typo, but this seems like a reasonable tweak. The description on list was a bit worrying regarding IP address, but this just says don't forward unless it is deliberate. And by deliberate, I mean that the forwarder knows it will work or that clients might not care. That seems ok.


Bijective should be symmetric. We're describing a relation not a function. This is a very minor comment, will send a PR hopefully soon.
Indeed, my math is pretty rusty :) Totally agree with you, and thanks for offering to write the PR!
NAME any luck with the PR?
I completely forgot about this!
URL opened
Closing now that has been merged.


Justify text after bullets consistenly Make sure all lines break at 80 characters
LGTM, modulo conflicts. It'd be nice if we had a linter that blocked PRs until their formatting was right, since changes like this taint git history.


adds a missing digest parameter corrects CDDL for suit-text removes dangling
I have discovered this because the EAT build process pulls the SUIT CDDL in for validation using the cddl tool.
NAME posted to the list the following: I think I found a little typo in the draft-ietf-suit-manifest-14 ... At the "Appendix A. A. Full CDDL" of the "SUITSeverableMembersChoice", the last two members are pointing to "SUITCommand_Sequence" are probably typos as following,
In draft-ietf-suit-manifest-04 In the example manifest image-digest parameter is set for component 0 in common sequence. The load sequence sets component-index to 1 and after directive-copy it specifies image-match condition. However, the image-digest parameter has not been set for component-index 1 causing the condition to fail as . Is it expected that parameters are implicitly copied from source component when copy-directive is executed? Should the image-digest be also specified for component-index 1 or perhaps for all components? Another observation in the example is that vendor-id and class-id parameters and corrsponding condition checks are specified for component 0, which seems to be the "external storage". Wouldn't it be better to specify the VID and CID globally for the entire device or for the component 1, which seems to be the one running the image? / common / 3:h'a2024782814100814101045856880c0014a40150fa6b4a5 3d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe02501492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45038202582 000112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba98765432100e198 7d001f602f6' / { / components / 2:h'82814100814101' / [ [h'00'] , [h'01'] ] /,


/ common-sequence / 4:h'880c0014a40150fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9d e663e4d41ffe02501492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab450382025820001122334455 66778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba98765432100e1987d001f602f6' / [ / directive-set-component-index / 12,0 , / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / vendor-id / 1:h'fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe' / fa6b4a53-d5ad-5fdf- be9d-e663e4d41ffe /, / class-id / 2:h'1492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45' / 1492af14-2569-5e48-bf42-9b2d51f2ab45 /, / image-digest / 3:[ / algorithm-id / 2 / sha256 /, / digest-bytes / h'00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba9876543210' ], / image-size / 14:34768, } , / condition-vendor-identifier / 1,F6 / nil / , / condition-class-identifier / 2,F6 / nil / ] /, } /, (.) / load / 11:h'880c0113a1160016f603f6' / [ / directive-set-component-index / 12,1 , / directive-set-parameters / 19,{ / source-component / 22:0 / [h'00'] /, } , / directive-copy / 22,F6 / nil / , / condition-image-match / 3,F6 / nil / ] /,


IANA's review wanted to know whether the 148 quadrillion GREASE values should be listed on the registry page as Reserved, and what note should be present if not. They should not, lest it be challenging to actually download the registry page within the lifetime of the human race. This rewords the restriction and clarifies that the restriction should be the note.
NAME Can you add the same text to 22.2 (Transport parameter registry) in the transport doc as well?
NAME said
We believe the note, updated based on IANA feedback during Last Call, is sufficient. Reserving 148 quadrillion values in the registry would cause the registry to be impossible to download in the lifetime of humanity; see . The purpose is described in , to exercise the requirement to ignore unknown frame types (a.k.a. GREASE). Proposal is to make no change; this was already covered during IANA review.
If IANA has agreed, then I am fine with it. BTW, I was not asking to make those zillions of reservations but leaving a note in the registry ;-)
It's a fair question but the WG and the responsible AD are satisfied with our IANA considerations at this stage, closing with no action.
Please see the for full context. This issue is tracking the following IANA question:
Copying my e-mail reply here: unknown values; having an explicit list encourages an explicitly defined reaction. This also applies to and , where the latter has better wording.
NAME replied to IANA . Closing this issue.
Actually, NAME said in response to the e-mail that this guidance should be in the document: Let's re-open to track. I don't think all instances of this question need separate issues, though.
So the related questions were: Should the GREASE values be listed in the registry as Reserved? No, because some rough estimation suggests it would take a few millennia to download the registry page if this were the case. Should there be a note indicating which values cannot be assigned? I'm of two minds, because while I really don't want people embedding the formula into their parsers, I do want people embedding the formula into their generators. says no Reserved listing, yes note.
I think this is proposal ready. Forwarding Mike's response to the list, to there is an archive to link to. Lars >


This changes the use of the term "entanglement" as discussed in , and moves some text around in this section for better clarity and less repetition. Also, addressing , it introduces a framer as an optional parameter to the Clone call.
NAME I incorporated all of your suggestions, thanks!
This is not fully clear from section 5.4., however, if connections in a group are each QUIC streams, I think it should be possible to use different framers on each stream. So it might be okay that a framers is copied when clone is called but changing a framer on one connection should not change the framer on the other connection in a group...?
Also an related editorial comment (that could be addressed in the same PR eventually): this section on groups only at the very end has a paragraph starting with "Note that calling Clone() can result in on-the-wire signaling..." which kind of explains that groups are supposed to be used for multistream protocol but can also be mapped to separate connection if the protocol doesn't not support multiplexing of stream on one connection. I think this information should be added at the very beginning of this section.
Actually, now looking at the framer section, I guess you would rather like to already set the new framer before you clone a connection...?
I agree with everything you say here; about your last suggestion, maybe a framer should be an optional argument of the clone call?
I don’t actually understand the difference between a connection in a Connection Group and an “entangled connection” ? Both terms are used in API, but in different ways (possibly by different authors) - do we really really need the word “entangled”?? if we do we need, can we define and explain this.
I think that having the word is good as it indicates a deeper relationship than mere "grouping". Just based on terms, I'd (correctly) imagine that I can define priorities between members of a group, and that they somehow belong together... as in: Close with a common call, etc. ... but I don't think that I would expect, just from this term, that changing a property on one of them affects all the others. Hence the phrasing: "The connections within a group are 'entangled' with each other". However, I agree that in most other places, we should talk about "groups" instead.


I can try to fix this.
Sounds good - we should add that explanation upfront in the definitions then also?
[Yes, I think so.] EDIT: no, now I don't think so anymore. (see )
I have addressed this in PR . Note that the text interchangeably talked about both Connections and Connection Properties as being "entangled". I have now written this such that the term "entanglement" applies to Connection Properties only, whereas Connections in a group are, well, members of the same Connection Group.
Looks good to me.


The Retry packet can be discarded.
The Retry packet currently allows sending an empty token. The Retry token is defined as an opaque blob where "indicates that x is variable-length", which also includes zero-length values. On the wire, an Initial packet with a zero-length token is identical to an Initial without a token. However, there's a difference on the client side, since a client will perform at most a single Retry.
Tagging this editorial. This was clearly intended to be considered non-zero length.


NAME ping?
Section 4.1 “The WHIP client MAY perform trickle ICE or ICE restarts ] by sending an HTTP PATCH request…” Why is there a reference to RFC8863, which specifies ICE PAC, here? In general a reference to ICE PAC is useful, because this draft allows an offer without any candidates. So maybe that reference should go at the end of: “The initial offer by the WHIP client MAY be sent after the full ICE gathering is complete with the full list of ICE candidates, or it MAY only contain local candidates (or even an empty list of candidates).”
I think it was a typo.
I created a PR to fix the tricke ice reference and add the pac one as suggested.


It's no longer normative and it's in a single section. I only moved text so far, and not as far as NAME suggested. I can go farther here or in a follow-up PR.
NAME I would like to merge this. WDYT?
Can we merge this soon. I'm worried about it developing conflicts.
Yep, NAME lost the chance to fix the PR. We are - of course - still open for editorial improvements in the form of new pull requests though.
calls them "exemplary" but 13.2.4 has MUST in it.
For reference, this refers to and in the editor's copy. I'm in favour of striking the exemplary note and saying that while the recovery draft is advisory, this document depends on implementations following something like what is recommended.
The specific MUSTs aren't really about the ACK algorithm per se, but about state endpoints will have to maintain for other reasons that are typically folded into your loss recovery code. If an implementation is unable to do duplicate detection for a packet number range, it MUST fail toward rejecting all packets, not toward accepting potential duplicates. An implementation must track the greatest packet number ever received, for use in recovering future packet numbers. In fact, the first requirement is discussed in 12.3 and could probably be dropped here. The second isn't actually called out (MUST) in 17.1, but could easily be moved there.
I think I'm inclined towards reorganizing the text and putting all the 'exemplary' parts into one section(ie: "Limiting ACK Ranges") and moving the normative text either into "Managing ACK Ranges" or elsewhere in the draft.
I thought I could clean this up fairly quickly, but I think a fair number of paragraphs need to move, including some of NAME suggestions. I'm happy to try to improve this in a few days if no one else has beaten me to it.
Anyone want to help NAME out and take this on?
Sorry about dropping this one. I'm fine with it, and happy to make editorials one later.Thanks Ian. When you lay it out like this, it seems so obvious. I checked that we don't have citations for {{ack-tracking}}, so this works nicely. If you care about the "MAY", then we can fix that in another PR.


This is the second step towards applying our new Properties Classification. It moves up the Connection Properties and annotates most places with stuff to do.
As discussed in
Thanks for moving this forward! I only found a few nits. Also, I have a question about whether two of these Properties should maybe be changed to be Selection Properties, but that's more of a discussion and not something that needs to be done in this URL modulo NAME commentsI carefully checked it, but I find it very hard to be sure that this is 100% ok (as is usually the case IMO with diff's about text blocks being moved around). My suggestion is to land it and see.


As requested, all new version number, salts, etc. for QUICv2. Verification of the test vectors would be especially valuable.
Woof. Thank you very much for quickly checking, and sorry I botched every part of that. All fixed now, I hope.
The new test vectors works well with my QUIC implementation in Haskell.
Thanks Kazu!
WFM. Not validated with a real build, but a script. See URL for the script that I used.


I have no idea what this section means. Virtualised antennas? virtualised reflectors? Good luck with that. chin-nfvrg-cloud-5g-core-structure-yang referring to an expired -00 internet-draft does not add credibility.
MJM : But on the virtualization comment: we had presentations in the group on NFV (network virtualization) with NC for satellites. I am sure that the authors of this work could add to Lloyd’s comments on that section.
We have added a research challenge and changed the title of section in PR . The section aims at identifying research challenge related to the interaction between NC and virtualization (function chaining, buffer management, etc).


Proposed changes: 0, fixing Roman Danyliw comment 1, change introduction to highlight additional functions of data plane and the focus of the draft 2, highlight that implementation of PREOF is out of scope, pointing to related IEEE work (i.e., 802.1CB) 3, fixing the POF section and its configuration via controller plane


Pretty sure we'll get a GEN-ART reviewing say to not refer to the WG by name because it will get closed at some point. I basically stole the intro from overview and modified it slightly.


I've found a few typos and fixed some sentences that didn't quite make sense. I don't think the meaning has been changed in any significant way.


Deploy preview for gnap-core-protocol-editors-draft ready! Built with commit a5ab40750ac9435b370bab7ded6dbdc60b35b01a https://deploy-preview-208--gnap-core-protocol-editors-URL
It may make sense to change the order to something like == && is present == && is absent == == && is present
I did changes for URL There are lots of other things that, I believe, could be improved & changed for the "Presenting Access Tokens" section and they will be addressed in separate PRs in the future.
Thank you, this is great! Aligns with the language in


This text could be read to imply that an off-path attacker is more capable than an on-path attacker, which is rarely true. What it was meant to point out was that it is easier to move traffic onto a path that you are on. What it fails to acknowledge is that it is also easier to move traffic off a path that you are on. In other words, the treatment of this in 21.12 is more thorough and we don't need to talk about limitations. Mike suggested that there is some duplication between this attack and the more comprehensive analysis in 21.12. That is true, but these serve different purposes. This is to describe attacks and the normative requirements on endpoints necessary to avoid them. The other section is a thorough and hollistic analysis. I couldn't see any truly straightforward changes. That doesn't mean that we won't find a way to clean this up, or that it would be undesirable to have fewer words, but I've not the time for that right now.
I find the text in 9.3.3 confusing, because it says: Unlike the attack described in {{on-path-spoofing}}, the attacker can ensure that the new path is successfully validated. This is odd because on-path attackers are generally regarded as stronger than on-path attackers. Why can't an on-path attacker complete this attack.
I think you're right that the text is confusing, if not quite incorrect. An on-path attacker can rewrite a source address, causing an apparent migration, but can't cause path validation to succeed with that source address unless it is actually on-path from both endpoints to the spoofed addresses as well. An off-path attacker which can race packets successfully can cause migration with successful path validation to a path which includes it, becoming a limited on-path attacker. This also feels slightly duplicative of 21.12.3; it might be worth condensing some text between these sections.


After thinking it through, various XOR schemes were extremely vulnerable to manipulation, so I went with a brute force approach.
The server now needs to include this field. For the no-shared state service, we just need language that the Retry service needs to encode enough information validate the packet DCID as well and drop if it fails validation. If it does, the server MUST use the packet DCID in the retrysourceconnection_id TP. For the shared state service, the retry source connection ID is going to have to be in the token. We might be able to compress this by xoring some fields; I'll think about it.


This updates the language around how certificate chains are constructed: We allow certificates to be omitted if the client knows any recipients will already possess the omitted certificate. We allow certificate chains to be out-of-order and potentially contain unused certificates. This is nice because it means less data needs to be sent on the wire, and also provides a method for root certificates to be rotated gracefully (as clients can provide chains for both old and new roots).
NAME it might be useful to also add this language from RFC 8446. It would make the process exactly the same as TLS which makes implementation easier. >The sender's certificate MUST come in the first >CertificateEntry in the list. Each following certificate SHOULD >directly certify the one immediately preceding it. Because >certificate validation requires that trust anchors be distributed >independently, a certificate that specifies a trust anchor MAY be >omitted from the chain, provided that supported peers are known to >possess any omitted certificates.
I think that is fine and is consistent with RFC8446. Don't we already have a better mechanism for rotating certificates? As soon as a member has a new certificate chain, it can update its LeafNode in an UpdatePath. This semantics of X.509 certificate bundles are already a bit fuzzy. Such a change will make validation more complicated and more error prone, when this seems completely unnecessary.
The scenario that this would address is: say that a root CA is compromised and needs to be replaced. Distributing the new CA certificate likely requires a software release, which not everyone will install simultaneously. During the rollout, some users will know only the old compromised CA and some users will know only the new CA and not the compromised one. To preserve interop during the rollout, users need to include two intermediates in their certificate chain: an intermediate signed by the old root that signs their leaf, and an intermediate signed by the new root that signs their leaf. (In the exact scenario I'm thinking of, the intermediate private key is held by the user, so it would not be compromised with the root. Though there may be other arrangements where this flexibility helps.) In terms of implementation complexity: the X509 chain validation libraries I'm aware of already support path building because it's necessary for TLS, so I would expect those could be used
This is actually the reason why I think it makes sense to adopt the same mechanism.


For example, if you use OpenSSL to validate the chain it does not take a chain as input. It takes a collection of certificates, a set of trusted root certs, and the leaf you want to validate. I believe not making this change has a higher complexity.
I'm sorry I missed this previously, but this requirement was a source of trouble in TLS and was removed in RFC 8446, which allows extra certificates in the middle. Was there a conscious decision to be more strict here.
I don't recall this ever being discussed. I think it was just added and nobody ever objected.
NAME can you elaborate a little bit? The way I read it the requirement is just that there is a valid signature chain, i.e. that one certificate signs the next and so on.
NAME - I deliberately reverted to the original TLS level of strictness here, in hopes that in starting over with a new ecosystem we could reset things to a cleaner state. Do you think there are legitimate reasons for violating the strict rule, or is it just a common misconfiguration in TLS servers? I would not really be inclined to accommodate the latter. NAME - I believe what NAME is envisioning are cases where there are multiple valid chains, say via old and new versions of an intermediate certificate. So you might do something like provide a "chain" of the form (leaf, oldintermediate, newintermediate), with the idea that the client could verify using whichever one makes it happy.
NAME take a look at the comment I left on the PR. I can see your point about starting over as being valid, but one thing that also caught my eye in the TLS RFC was language around allowing a root CA to be left out of the chain since those could potentially already exist in a local trust store.
I see. Thanks NAME for the clarification. Maybe we can phrase it in such a way that whatever the credential includes (added intermediary certificates or left-out root certificates) in the end the local client MUST be able to create a continuous certificate chain from the leaf to the root. Do we need to define how the client does that? Since we're already pushing everything else related to authentication into the AS, I'm inclined to say no.


Merging PR 100 added to the changelog at draft-04, but we're up to draft-06 now.


URL match the flags array in the token request. While this is technically a breaking change, I think we should consider this editorial as this should have been changed when we made the original change to use a flags array in the request in .
:heavycheckmark: Deploy Preview for gnap-core-protocol-editors-draft ready! Built :hammer: Explore the source changes: 8c793bb446d82f053536358106485568fc457842 :mag: Inspect the deploy log: :sunglasses: Browse the preview:
You know, I had that thought, and I checked the request section and it doesn't have quotes. I'm going to add the quotes to both parts. This ended up with some other language changing, not just the examples, so let me know what you think.


Looks good to me
JSEP says: S 4.1.1. " The PeerConnection constructor allows the application to specify global parameters for the media session, such as the STUN/TURN servers and credentials to use when gathering candidates. The size of the ICE candidate pool can also be set, if desired; by default the candidate pool size is zero." The WebRTC spec says: "At this point the ICE Agent does not know how many ICE components it needs (and hence the number of candidates to gather), but it can make a reasonable assumption such as 2. As the RTCPeerConnection object gets more information, the ICE Agent can adjust the number of components"
Imagine 4 is more realistic.
so default in not defined but their is way for the JS to to set the default for a PC
Discussed in DC: default will be unspecified and left up to browsers, there will need to be a setting for applications to override this default.
w3c bug is URL


Fixed a few typos, otherwise ready to merge.
Merging on Ali's review.
From NAME (URL) (In Section 3.6. Unpredictable Usage Profiles / Section 3.7. Extremely) Unpredictable Usage Profiles I am not fully convinced by the distinction between "unpredictable" and "extremely unpredictable". To me, these two sections could be merged and maybe also be shortened. More specifically, Section 3.7 lists a lot of statistics from the past. What is IMHO a bit missing in Section 3.7 are actual operational considerations. For instance, are there any lessons learnt for the future? Note that Section 3.6 has a reasonable conclusion at the end. Reviewer: Michael Scharf Review result: Ready with Issues This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC EMAIL if you reply to or forward this review. This informational document surveys network and transport protocol issues that affect quality of experience for streaming applications, in particular video. The overview covers many topics across different technologies. Readers may only be familiar with a subset of these topics and could therefore learn quite a bit from this kind of tutorial. Nonetheless, it remains somewhat unclear what the actual objective of some of the text is. For some topics, quite a bit of technical background is provided, but the discussion is not really comprehensive. In many sections, the document neither derives technical challenges, nor system/protocol requirements, nor practical usage guidance. It is just a kind of tutorial. Quite a bit of text also presents ongoing IETF work, and an RFC with this scope may thus get outdated soon. Section 6.2 deals with topics owned by TCPM. In similar past documents, I have asked for a TCPM presentation prior to an IETF last call in order to ensure that owners of running code are in the loop. I believe this strategy has worked well in the past.


Having said this, as TSV-ART reviewer I don't strongly disagree with a publication. All these issues may just be OK for an informational RFC. Some more specific comments: Section 3.2.1. Recognizing Changes from an Expected Baseline This section apparently assumes relatively static path properties, e.g., fixed network connectivity. It would be more useful to analyze the impact of Wifi and 4G/5G networks in one place. Some of this follows later in sections 3.2.1 and Yet, the split between these three sections is unclear. Having a discussion about today's Internet path characteristics and the dynamics at one place could be more useful. The text could also better distinguish between what matters to endpoints and considerations relevant only for middleboxes (such as passive monitors). Section 3.3 Path Requirements The statement "to find the bandwidth requirements for a router on the delivery path" may assume that the bottleneck on the path will be routers. Yet, on a path the bottlenecks could also be a link layer device (e.g., an Ethernet Switch, a Wifi access point, etc.). RFC 6077 (specifically Section 3.1.3) also explains that issue. A better wording may be "to find the bandwidth requirements for a delivery path". Section 3.6. Unpredictable Usage Profiles / Section 3.7. Extremely Unpredictable Usage Profiles I am not fully convinced by the distinction between "unpredictable" and "extremely unpredictable". To me, these two sections could be merged and maybe also be shortened. More specifically, Section 3.7 lists a lot of statistics from the past. What is IMHO a bit missing in Section 3.7 are actual operational considerations. For instance, are there any lessons learnt for the future? Note that Section 3.6 has a reasonable conclusion at the end. Section 4. Latency Considerations and Section 4.1. Ultra Low-Latency I am surprised by the definition "ultra low-latency (less than 1 second)", as well as some of the other numbers. For other real-time communication use cases, "ultra low-latency" would probably imply a latency requirement of the order of one millisecond.


For instance, isochronous traffic for motion control in industrial networks may require a latency of 1 ms, and such "ultra-low latency" requirements are discussed elsewhere, e.g., in the DetNet WG. The terminology in this section should be better explained to readers dealing with networked systems with much harder latency requirements. And a reference should be added for these definitions in the context of video streaming. Section 5.5.2 Head-of-Line Blocking If Head-of-Line Blocking is indeed a relevant operational problem, it would be useful to add a corresponding reference (e.g., with measurements). Section 5.5.3. Wide and Rapid Variation in Path Capacity The statement "As many end devices have moved to wireless connectivity for the final hop (Wi-Fi, 5G, or LTE), new problems in bandwidth detction have emerged from radio interference and signal strength effects." could be moved to earlier parts of the document. Quite a bit of new computers apparently only have Wifi connectivity and no Ethernet port, i.e., Wifi may just be their default. Also, wireless may not only be used on the last hop, for instance in meshed setups. This may make the problem even harder. Section 6. Evolution of Transport Protocols and Transport Protocol Behaviors I really wonder whether UDP vs. TCP vs. QUIC is actually the relevant distinction. What may actually matter are the transport services provided by the protocol stack (e.g., RFC 8095). I fully agree to a related comment in the INTDIR review. Section 6.1. UDP and Its Behavior UDP is also used for encrypted tunnels (OpenVPN, Wireguard, etc.). Does encrypted tunneling really have no operational impact on streaming apps other than circuit breakers? (I am thinking about 4K streaming over OpenVPN and the like.) Section 6.2. TCP and Its Behavior This text should IMHO be presented and be discussed in TCPM. Personally, I am not convinced that this document is a good place for discussing the long history of TCP congestion control. If the objective of the document is to provide a tutorial, IMHO it would be more useful to briefly explain the state-of-the-art in year 2022.


Some further specific comments on TCP congestion control: It is surprising that RFC 5681 is not referenced.793bis has normative statements regarding congestion control, and most stacks are compatible to what is written in 793bis. Several operating systems use CUBIC by default and support standard Reno. Another general good reference for TCP standards is RFC 7414.Does ECN, DCTCP, etc. really not matter at all, for instance, if a data center hosts video playout servers? Section 6.3. QUIC and Its Behavior As already noted, the discussion about head-of-line-blocking would really benefit from backing by a reference. Section 7. Streaming Encrypted Media As far as I know, streaming users sometimes use encrypted tunnels such as OpenVPN or WireGuard (or IPsec) to access video content. I may miss something, but it is unclear to me how that fits into the categories presented in Section


The abstract seems weak. It should mention the problem domain and all of the components. Not sure if it needs to mention PvD at all.
Personally, I think that aside from the PvD mention, which can be removed, the current is mostly OK. Brief is good.


This keeps things simple.
I have no idea how that happened. Forced it.
Are we ok with a server sending both a VN packet and a Retry in response to a single UDP datagram?
NAME Does that happen? IIUC VN is sent only when there's a version mismatch. Retry is sent only when there's no version mismatch.
NAME A client could coalesce two packets of different versions. As I've said on the issue, I still feel uneasy with the fact that a client could coalesce around 70 packets into a single datagram, and I'd prefer more rigid rules to solve this problem.
NAME I'd argue that a client can't do that, because the draft states "Senders MUST NOT coalesce QUIC packets for different connections into a single UDP datagram", OTOH I agree that there's nothing that requires the server to drop following QUIC packets with different versions within a combined datagram. As I stated on URL, I (still) think the approach in this PR would require having minimal state. Would you mind elaborating (possibly on the issue) why you think differently?
Sure, the issue here comes from multi-threaded processing, and reusing packet buffers. I have one thread (or rather, one go-routine) that reads UDP datagrams from the network, splits the coalesced packets and parses the unencrypted part of the header, and then passes the QUIC packets to their respective connections (which are running in a separate go-routine each). In order to reduce allocations, I reuse the buffers I read my packets into. When handling coalesced packets, this means I have to wait until all coalesced parts have been processed before reusing the buffer. Therefore, I can't just parse the first coalesced packet, pass it on for handling in another threat, and then continue parsing. This would create a race condition, since the handling of the packet might be executed before the parsing is finished, and the packet buffer would be returned already. So I have to split the coalesced packets first, and then handle them. This wouldn't be a problem at all if a coalesced packet just had a few parts, as it's supposed to be.


But since we're maximizing flexibility for no reason, an attacker might send me datagram consisting of around 70 packets, which I would all have to completely parse.
NAME Thank you for elaborating. I think that we should be dispatching each UDP datagram (instead of each QUIC packet) to the respective connections. That's how load balancers are expected to work, and what you are implementing is essentially a load balancer. The benefit of dispatching at the datagram level is that you'd have less things to do on the receiving thread. I understand your point on flexibility. However, in my view, the flexibility is not only how you coalesce, but the redundancy in all the long header fields. We have deliberately chosen the design because it is clear and easy to analyze (especially in regard to encryption). My preference goes to retaining the clarity by avoiding introducing restrictions.
I think this PR addresses the amplification problem directly, by tying the number of response datagrams to the number of incoming datagrams, so I am in favor of this PR as a spec solution. NAME : quic-go can still choose to drop datagrams with a large (> 3?) coalesced packets, which might help you (slightly). I agree with NAME also that since all coalesced packets are supposed to go to the same connection, the implementation would be better aligned if it were to pass the datagram along to the connection instead of the individual packets... but that's an impl choice, and it's certainly not the only way to do this.
I'm merging this. Please reopen the issue if you think this ought to be discussed further, especially in Tokyo.


This text is rather subjective without data. Changing it to "may" still brings the point without needing a reference to a study proving the sentence true.
(whoops; just realized I've been blowing my pull requests by chaining them off a single branch... my bad, and this will cause you some pain)


Add in text from Birkholz draft, with some wordsmithing and grammatical fixes from Dave Thaler


I applied the following principles, which unfortunately are somewhat inconsistent with the current mux-exclusive draft. You use a=rtcp-mux to negotiate mux a=rtcp-mux-only is used by the offerer to say "I really mean it" To that end, offers contain a=rtcp-mux-only if the policy is require. Answers don't contain it because you don't need it to negotiate mux.
Those principles are consistent with bundle-only, although I wrote the mux-only examples as if mux-only should always be included whenever a=rtcp-mux is present.
NAME back at you
NAME ping
LG


Applied requested changes
In 3.2 it is clear that you can set Message Properties on Connections and Preconnections, but the rest of the document is not very clear about this. In 4.2 for instance the text only talks about setting Selection Properties and Connection Properties on PreConnections. In 7.1.3 the text says "Connection Properties describe the default behavior for all Messages on a Connection". But I think that Message Properties set on a Connection or PreConnection may also describe the default behavior so this relationship should be clarified. Also, the Message Property defaults given for Properties that do not depend on other Properties sets the defaults for all Messages in a Connection I assume? I also assume that a Message Property set on a Message Context overrides a Message Property set on a PreConnection or Connection, but this is also not specified. In 5.4. Connection Groups, I assume that setting Message Properties on a Connection applies to all Connections in the Connection Group? This is not clear.
In general, I agree. If you set a message property dynamically on a connection, though, I don't think it would affect the group—I could have one stream in a multiplexed protocol have separate behavior, such as priority.
+1 to tfpauly. But this is already written in 5.4, maybe you missed it (Anna)? "Message Properties are also not entangled. For example, changing Lifetime (see Section 7.1.3.1) of a Message will only affect a single Message on a single Connection."
I am fine with an update of a Message Property to a connection applying only to that connection. Priority is not a good example as it is already a special case, but my main issue was that we need to be more clear about the behavior in the specification. NAME the issue is about setting a Message Property on a Connection. The text you refer to talk about setting Message Properties on a message. You could interpret the first part as a general statement, but the way the text is structured it is easy to think it refers to setting Message Properties on a message so I think we should be explicit also about setting Message Properties on a Connection. Could be a second example.
So after looking at the text again, I think the example talking about setting Message Properties on a message should be removed, see comment in the pull request.
Thanks!!