jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
2. The design goal is to be able to send simple sensor measurements in <del> small packets on mesh networks from large numbers of constrained devices.  Keeping the total size of payload under 80 bytes makes this easy to use on a wireless mesh network.  It is always difficult to define what small code is, but there is a desire to be able to implement this in roughly 1 KB of flash on a 8 bit microprocessor. Experience with power meters and other large scale deployments has indicated that the solution needs to support allowing multiple measurements to be batched into a single HTTP or CoAP request.  This "batch" upload capability allows the server side to efficiently support a large number of devices.  It also conveniently supports batch transfers from proxies and storage devices, even in situations where the sensor itself sends just a single data item at a time.  The multiple measurements could be from multiple related sensors or from the same sensor but at different times. </del> <ins> small packets from large numbers of constrained devices.  Keeping the total size of payload small makes it easy to use SenML also in constrained networks, e.g., in a 6LoWPAN RFC4944.  It is always difficult to define what small code is, but there is a desire to be able to implement this in roughly 1 KB of flash on a 8 bit microprocessor.  Experience with power meters and other large scale deployments has indicated that the solution needs to support allowing multiple measurements to be batched into a single HTTP or CoAP request.  This "batch" upload capability allows the server side to efficiently support a large number of devices.  It also conveniently supports batch transfers from proxies and storage devices, even in situations where the sensor itself sends just a single data item at a time.  The multiple measurements could be from multiple related sensors or from the same sensor but at different times. </ins> The basic design is an array with a series of measurements.  The following example shows two measurements made at different times.

Related discussion:
text: 100 bytes? (Here again I'd remove the text about mesh networks.) mesh networks result in about 80 bytes of usable payload per packet without fragmentation. How about we say keeping it small is good and quote examples of 802.15.4 has about 80 byte payload and that LoRa has 51 byte of applications payload in long range mode and just remove any reference to "mesh"
I'm fine with suggestion above. I'm also fine with just leaving draft as is.
Addressed by PR
Code change:
If the nodelist is empty, the conversion result is "LogicalFalse". <del> Extraction of a value from a nodelist can be performed in several ways, so an implicit conversion from "NodesType" to "ValueType" may be surprising and has therefore not been defined.  A function expression with a declared type of "NodesType" can indirectly be used as an argument for a parameter of declared type "ValueType" by wrapping the expression in a call to a function extension such as "value" (see value). </del> <ins> Notes: Extraction of a value from a nodelist can be performed in several ways, so an implicit conversion from "NodesType" to "ValueType" may be surprising and has therefore not been defined. A function expression with a declared type of "NodesType" can indirectly be used as an argument for a parameter of declared type "ValueType" by wrapping the expression in a call to a function extension, such as "value()" (see value), that takes a parameter of type "NodesType" and returns a result of type "ValueType". </ins> The well-typedness of function expressions can now be defined in terms of this type system.

Related discussion:
text: Use parentheses as an indication that something is a function. Also, don't confuse the reader by alluding to potential future alternatives to value(). Reviewers: is this an improvement? It's a draft PR for now until we decide the change is worthwhile.
I think we'll need to explain the () notation, which should be familiar to C programmers but not necessarily to people who grew up on other languages. I also think we have a few more examples that point to hypothetical functions, such as , , .
I don't think there's a great point at which to explain that notation and, based on your observation, I'm going off the idea.
NAME Let's see how pans out before taking the current PR any further. Once I remove the function parentheses, the two PRs are changing the same text.
would be the place.
NAME As you suggested, I introduced this in 1.1, but near the start since it's notation rather than terminology. I did a regexp search to find and fix the remaining examples (your list was complete). In doing so, I found the strange markup and removed the backticks since there was no good reason for them.
We could do the fun() explanation and completeness search in a separate PR.
Code change:
Section 8.2 of I-D.ietf-add-svcb-dns describes a second downgrade attack where an attacker can block connections to the encrypted DNS <del> server, and recommends that clients prevent it by switching to SVCB- reliant behavior once SVCB resolution does succeed.  For DDR, this means that once a client discovers a compatible Designated Resolver, it SHOULD NOT use unencrypted DNS until the SVCB record expires, unless verification of the resolver fails. </del> <ins> server.  For DDR, clients need to validate a Designated Resolver using a connection to the server before trusting it, so attackers that can block these connections can prevent clients from switching to use encrypted DNS. </ins> DoH resolvers that allow discovery using DNS SVCB answers over unencrypted DNS MUST NOT provide differentiated behavior based on the

Related discussion:
text: DISCUSS: CC NAME See my discuss on draft-ietf-add-ddr-11 for my generic ADD DNR/DDR concerns Resolver without some sort of validation Why not? What is the alternative? Using unencrypted DNS to the party that told you how and where to contact these (unvalidated) Designated Resolvers. Resolver that does not use a private or local IP address and can be verified using the mechanism described in Section 4.2, it MAY be used on different network connections so long as the subsequent connections over other networks can also be successfully verified using the mechanism described in Section 4.2. This seems to go against a lot of advise in the documents that networks must be treated independently. Also, the network wants you to use their designated resolver, so to say it is okay to use a totally different Designated Resolvers seems to violate the whole DNR/DDR architecture. This will also cause failure if there is split-DNS or internal-only data. Also, using "public IP" is not a good trustworthy method to prove that these IPs are truly the same Designated Resolver used by both networks. I can easily use an internal only zone with . IN A 8.8.8.8 and get a valid ACME'd certificate with SAN=. The user connecting to another network might now be switching from my private DNS on my stolen 8.8.8.8 IP to the real google DNS. address of the designating Unencrypted Resolver in a subjectAltName extension. How feasible is it to get a certificate with SAN=ip from one of the generally accepted root store CA's? Can you give me one example where I can get a certificate for with SAN=193.110.157.123 ? I do not think this is currently possible or easy. If I am right, that means all of Section 4.2 is wishful thinking and not realistic to get rolled out. (I know we can see the cert for 1.1.1.1, so it is possible, but I know of no ACME supported CA that issues these) discovered Designated Resolver. This creates a strange policy when compared to DNR where if you get a DHCP or RA for the Designated Resolver, which is also not validatable, that you do end up using it?
Code change:
Section 8.2 of I-D.ietf-add-svcb-dns describes a second downgrade attack where an attacker can block connections to the encrypted DNS <del> server, and recommends that clients prevent it by switching to SVCB- reliant behavior once SVCB resolution does succeed.  For DDR, this means that once a client discovers a compatible Designated Resolver, it SHOULD NOT use unencrypted DNS until the SVCB record expires, unless verification of the resolver fails. </del> <ins> server.  For DDR, clients need to validate a Designated Resolver using a connection to the server before trusting it, so attackers that can block these connections can prevent clients from switching to use encrypted DNS. </ins> DoH resolvers that allow discovery using DNS SVCB answers over unencrypted DNS MUST NOT provide differentiated behavior based on the

Related discussion:
text: And section 6.5 states DNR trumps DDR. address, clients MAY choose to opportunistically use the Designated Resolver even without this certificate check (Section 4.3). Why only when the IP is the same? Why not for when the IP is different? What's to lose, since the only fallback option is stick to using the unencrypted resolver? yields an IP address that was not presented in the Additional Answers section or ipv4hint or ipv6hint fields of the original SVCB query, the connection made to that IP address MUST pass the same TLS certificate checks before being allowed to replace a previously known and validated IP address for the same Designated Resolver name. How does the appearance of an (unsigned) Additional Answer entry convey any kind of real world trust/authentication? In other words, why should it not ALWAYS pass the same TLS certificate checks ? is to use unencrypted DNS, why not just use it anyway? use DDR to discover details about all supported encrypted DNS protocols. It's a little odd to mention this as the DNR draft really tries hard to say to only use the network's offered encrypted DNS servers, so this option is in conflict with the DNR draft. Unfortunately, all currently deployed software does not know this, so it will be very common that this happens. URL SHOULD treat URL as a locally served zone per [RFC6303] Why is this not a MUST ? queries being dropped either maliciously or unintentionally, clients can re-send their SVCB queries periodically. I don't see how this would improve security for the client. It also mixes up behaviour of proper DNS clients that have their own retransmit logic for if they get no answer. attack where an attacker can block connections to the encrypted DNS server, and recommends that clients prevent it by switching to SVCB- reliant behavior once SVCB resolution does succeed. For DDR, this means that once a client discovers a compatible Designated Resolver, it SHOULD NOT use unencrypted DNS until the SVCB record expires I wonder which attacker can block encrypted DNS connections but not spoof (or block!) an unsigned SVCB record to the local client? And even if that is the case, this would be a denial of service attack if the DNS client cannot fallback to unencrypted DNS.
Code change:
Section 8.2 of I-D.ietf-add-svcb-dns describes a second downgrade attack where an attacker can block connections to the encrypted DNS <del> server, and recommends that clients prevent it by switching to SVCB- reliant behavior once SVCB resolution does succeed.  For DDR, this means that once a client discovers a compatible Designated Resolver, it SHOULD NOT use unencrypted DNS until the SVCB record expires, unless verification of the resolver fails. </del> <ins> server.  For DDR, clients need to validate a Designated Resolver using a connection to the server before trusting it, so attackers that can block these connections can prevent clients from switching to use encrypted DNS. </ins> DoH resolvers that allow discovery using DNS SVCB answers over unencrypted DNS MUST NOT provide differentiated behavior based on the

Related discussion:
text: Spoofing an SVCB to a bogus IP with an SVCB TTL of a few hours would be a very cheap 1 packet attack to keep the DNS client down for hours. This seems dangerous to implement. unencrypted DNS MUST NOT provide differentiated behavior based on the HTTP path alone, since an attacker could modify the "dohpath" parameter. For example, if a DoH resolver provides provides a filtering service for one URI path, and a non-filtered service for another URI path, [...] It seems likely that this advise will get ignored a lot, eg by people who have limited public IPs to use to spin up a DoH server, or who have to pay-per-IP. This advise seems more appropriate for local private IP DoH servers. So I would change this MUST NOT to SHOULD NOT for that reason. Unencrypted Resolver, clients applying Verified Discovery (Section 4.2) MUST validate that the IP address of the Unencrypted Resolver is covered by the SubjectAlternativeName of the Designated Resolver's TLS certificate. How would one obtain such a certificate via ACME? Since on the IP of the unencrypted resolver, there would be no HTTP server running? Additionally, if the client notices a failed verification of the Designated Resolver's TLS certificate, wouldn't it fallback to the Unencrypted Resolver? But now it may not? So this becomes a denial of service then ? to cases where the Unencrypted Resolver and Designated Resolver have the same IP address. Based on earlier text, this should read "the same non-public IP address". you use "unilateral probing" (draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing) to just connect to the DoT or DoQ ports of the Unencrypted Resolver and see if you get anything back. It might be unauthenticated TLS but better than port 53? Special-Use Domain Names (SUDN) registry established by [RFC6761]. Why not pick URL As .local is already handled to not be forwarded by DNS forwarders. It would also not require an addition to SUDN. Even if someone was already using URL, it would not interfere with that usage because that usage would not be using SVCB records.
Code change:
Section 8.2 of I-D.ietf-add-svcb-dns describes a second downgrade attack where an attacker can block connections to the encrypted DNS <del> server, and recommends that clients prevent it by switching to SVCB- reliant behavior once SVCB resolution does succeed.  For DDR, this means that once a client discovers a compatible Designated Resolver, it SHOULD NOT use unencrypted DNS until the SVCB record expires, unless verification of the resolver fails. </del> <ins> server.  For DDR, clients need to validate a Designated Resolver using a connection to the server before trusting it, so attackers that can block these connections can prevent clients from switching to use encrypted DNS. </ins> DoH resolvers that allow discovery using DNS SVCB answers over unencrypted DNS MUST NOT provide differentiated behavior based on the

Related discussion:
text: To avoid name lookup deadlock, Designated Resolvers SHOULD follow the guidance in Section 10 of [RFC8484] regarding the avoidance of DNS- based references that block the completion of the TLS handshake. I find that reference to list more the issues than solutions that can be followed. The solution to use another DoH server is not really appropriate in most cases The client's other interface likely resides on other networks where its private DoH server cannot resolve the name of another network's private DoH server. It is also not easy to get an IP based certificate (eg SAN=ip) that is accepted by general webpki root stores. And things like OCSP stapling doesn't help if the target is malicious - they just would omit the stapling that proves against its malicious use. The only real advise usable from RFC8484 is "use the local unencrypted resolver to resolve the encrypted resolver". Might as well say that and remove the 8484 reference. as the protocol is mentioned throughout the document as interacting with this protocol. when accessing web content on a dual-stack network: A, AAAA, and HTTPS queries. Discovering a Designated Resolver as part of one of these queries, without having to add yet another query, minimizes the total number of queries clients send. I don't understand this paragraph. Once clients can send SVCB queries for web content, they already have had to do all the DDR/DNR related queries, so I don't understand the argument of "saving queries" ? Also, it is adding queries for a specific target, eg URL, and this cannot be "saved" either? What am I misunderstanding here? provides provides -> provides
We should reference Security Considerations, because if you don't have any validation, an attacker can point you to any server they want (someone other than the server you were configured with by DHCP, etc).
We can probably just remove this, not using it in implementations right now.
It's already done by the major public resolvers, and there is an RFC to support this (RFC 8738). The IP address validation is clearly important and a matter of WG consensus. Hopefully, this will push adoption of RFC 8738 by more ACME services.
We can reference the DNR section. The MUST NOT should only apply to DDR, but doesn't invalidate other ways of using the resolver.
Code change:
Section 8.2 of I-D.ietf-add-svcb-dns describes a second downgrade attack where an attacker can block connections to the encrypted DNS <del> server, and recommends that clients prevent it by switching to SVCB- reliant behavior once SVCB resolution does succeed.  For DDR, this means that once a client discovers a compatible Designated Resolver, it SHOULD NOT use unencrypted DNS until the SVCB record expires, unless verification of the resolver fails. </del> <ins> server.  For DDR, clients need to validate a Designated Resolver using a connection to the server before trusting it, so attackers that can block these connections can prevent clients from switching to use encrypted DNS. </ins> DoH resolvers that allow discovery using DNS SVCB answers over unencrypted DNS MUST NOT provide differentiated behavior based on the

Related discussion:
text: If they are different, it can be a random attacker (see security considerations). The client may also have other better options to fall back to.
Agree, this should be simplified to say "even if you connect over a different IP address for any reason, still validate the original IP address"
There are definitely cases where the client can have directly selected their own resolver name, etc. We don't have to use the network resolver.
Correct, and that's why we need this document, and it was added to the IANA section.
Sure, we can make this a MUST.
It makes the attacker's job harder by requiring them to be persistent. Normal retransmission logic is fine too.
This is a direct outcome of the svcb-dns document. Spoofing SVCB shouldn't be enough to cause a DoS here, because we should continue to use the previously used encrypted DNS server while on this network (even if you get a bad SVCB packet).
For the security reasons, I think this needs to stay as a MUST NOT. However, if you differentiate based on hostname + path, you can still differentiate, it just isn't a differentiation that can be discovered by IP address queries.
Yes, you'd fall back to unencrypted resolution if you can't have a secure trusted connection for encrypted resolution.
Yes, but that part is SHOULD. Will fix.
I think that's just opportunistic DoT / DoQ. That's already specified.
.local is the SUDN for multicast DNS, but it is also squatted on by some internal networks. Following the patterns for URL, etc, .arpa is a much more appropriate name. This is what the group had consensus on years ago and has been deployed widely already.
I think we can say "as explained in RFC 8484, don't loop on the resolver name."
Sure, that's fine.
Yeah, this paragraph is old and can be removed.
Looks good! Just silly editorial nits
Code change:
param_value_definition : If for any one of the endpoints the parameter is absent or set to 0, <del> or if the two endpoints select incompatible values, one proposing 0x1 and the other proposing 0x2, the endpoints MUST fallback to QUIC- TRANSPORT with single path and MUST NOT use any frame or mechanism defined in this document. If an endpoint proposes the value 0x3, the value proposed by the other is accepted.  If both endpoints propose the value 0x3, the value 0x2 is negotiated. </del> <ins> the endpoints MUST fallback to QUIC-TRANSPORT with single active path and MUST NOT use any frame or mechanism defined in this document. </ins> If endpoint receives unexpected value for the transport parameter "enable_multipath", it MUST treat this as a connection error of type

Related discussion:
text: If the client spoofs a path, it will never receive the challenge, and thus the server will never receive the response and will not validate the path. See section 8.2 of RFC 9000, path validation. Security section 21.1.3. Connection Migration states that "Path validation () establishes that a peer is both willing and able to receive packets sent on a particular path."
So yes, the current text should be "the servers MUST in turn attempt to validate these paths using the same mechanisms, as specified in {{ Section 8.2 of RFC9000 }}."
No, this should not be a MUST. It is true that the path MUST be validated before it can be used. However, just because the serve receives a new packet on a path, that doesn't automatically mean that the server has to start path validation. It could e.g. also decide to simply withdraw that packet.
Actually, this is also not right. This is what RFC9000 says (section 9): So I guess we should maybe not use normative language here but refer to section 9 in RFC9000 instead...?
Just submitted PR for this issue.
This draft initially originates from a merging effort of previous Multipath proposals. While many points were found to be common between them, there remains one design point that still requires consensus: the number of packet number spaces that a Multipath QUIC connection should support (i.e., one for the whole connection vs. one per path). The current draft enables experimentation with both variants, but in the final version we will certainly need to choose between one of the versions.
The main issues mentioned so far: Efficiency. One number space per path should be more efficient, because implementations can directly reuse the loss-recovery logic specified for QUIC ACK size. Single space leads to lots of out of order delivery, which causes ACK sizes to grow Simplicity of code. Single space can be implemented without adding mane new code paths to uni-path QUIC Shorter header. Single space works well with NULL length CID The picoquic implementation shows that "efficiency" and "ack size" issues of single space implementations can be mitigated.