jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
to predict usage and provision bandwidth, caching, and other mechanisms to meet the needs of users.  In some cases (sec-predict), this is relatively routine, but in other cases, it is more difficult <del> (sec-unpredict, sec-extreme). </del> <ins> (sec-unpredict). </ins> And as with other parts of the ecosystem, new technology brings new challenges.  For example, with the emergence of ultra-low-latency

Related discussion:
text: 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.
Code change:
to predict usage and provision bandwidth, caching, and other mechanisms to meet the needs of users.  In some cases (sec-predict), this is relatively routine, but in other cases, it is more difficult <del> (sec-unpredict, sec-extreme). </del> <ins> (sec-unpredict). </ins> And as with other parts of the ecosystem, new technology brings new challenges.  For example, with the emergence of ultra-low-latency

Related discussion:
text: 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.
Code change:
to predict usage and provision bandwidth, caching, and other mechanisms to meet the needs of users.  In some cases (sec-predict), this is relatively routine, but in other cases, it is more difficult <del> (sec-unpredict, sec-extreme). </del> <ins> (sec-unpredict). </ins> And as with other parts of the ecosystem, new technology brings new challenges.  For example, with the emergence of ultra-low-latency

Related discussion:
text: 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
Code change:
endpoint is allowed to send packets from any source address that falls within the prefix. <ins> If an endpoint receives multiple ADDRESS_ASSIGN capsules, all of the assigned addresses or prefixes can be used.  For example, multiple ADDRESS_ASSIGN capsules are necessary to assign both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. </ins> 4.2.2. The ADDRESS_REQUEST capsule allows an endpoint to request assignment

Related discussion:
text: Good point, added. Note that I've also added an important note about how ROUTEADVERTISEMENT and ROUTEWITHDRAWAL coexist, please take a look NAME and NAME .
As discussed in , turning a sequence of ROUTEADVERTISEMENT and ROUTEWITHDRAWAL capsules into a functional routing table isn't as simple as initially expected. This is because two separate capsules can describe prefixes that are distinct but overlap. We should simplify the design or better explain the caveats.
I think the capsules description needs to be explicit if multiple capsules are allowed. I think there are different considerations depending on what type of capsules are used. The authors have already discussed and concluded that multiple routeadvertisement will be needed to allow to declare reachability of multiple prefix. I don''t know if multiple addressassign capsules are allowed. Allowing multiple allows multiple address ranges to be declared. However, that results that we also get the question if one need to withdraw source address prefixes..
Yes, multiple capsules of each type are allowed. It does seem useful to clarify this, and what it means to receive multiple addresses and multiple routes (which are additive). NAME can you help write this?
Agreed, multiple capsules of all currently defined capsule types are allowed. For example, multiple ADDRESS_ASSIGN are needed to support a dual-stack tunnel. I'll write a PR.
Code change:
client or network. If the IP address of a Designated Resolver differs from that of an Unencrypted DNS Resolver, clients applying Verified Discovery (verified) MUST validate that the IP address of the Unencrypted DNS Resolver is covered by the SubjectAlternativeName of the Designated

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:
client or network. If the IP address of a Designated Resolver differs from that of an Unencrypted DNS Resolver, clients applying Verified Discovery (verified) MUST validate that the IP address of the Unencrypted DNS Resolver is covered by the SubjectAlternativeName of the Designated

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:
client or network. If the IP address of a Designated Resolver differs from that of an Unencrypted DNS Resolver, clients applying Verified Discovery (verified) MUST validate that the IP address of the Unencrypted DNS Resolver is covered by the SubjectAlternativeName of the Designated

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:
client or network. If the IP address of a Designated Resolver differs from that of an Unencrypted DNS Resolver, clients applying Verified Discovery (verified) MUST validate that the IP address of the Unencrypted DNS Resolver is covered by the SubjectAlternativeName of the Designated

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:
client or network. If the IP address of a Designated Resolver differs from that of an Unencrypted DNS Resolver, clients applying Verified Discovery (verified) MUST validate that the IP address of the Unencrypted DNS Resolver is covered by the SubjectAlternativeName of the Designated

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:
associate an SNI value with the ticket.  Clients, however, SHOULD store the SNI with the PSK to fulfill the requirements of NSTMessage. <del> Implementor's note: the most straightforward way to implement the PSK/cipher suite matching requirements is to negotiate the cipher suite first and then exclude any incompatible PSKs.  Any unknown PSKs (e.g., they are not in the PSK database or are encrypted with an unknown key) SHOULD simply be ignored.  If no acceptable PSKs are found, the server SHOULD perform a non-PSK handshake if possible. </del> <ins> Implementor's note: when session resumption is the primary use case of PSKs the most straightforward way to implement the PSK/cipher suite matching requirements is to negotiate the cipher suite first and then exclude any incompatible PSKs.  Any unknown PSKs (e.g., they are not in the PSK database or are encrypted with an unknown key) SHOULD simply be ignored.  If no acceptable PSKs are found, the server SHOULD perform a non-PSK handshake if possible.  If backwards compatibility is important, client provided, externally established PSKs SHOULD influence cipher suite selection. </ins> Prior to accepting PSK key establishment, the server MUST validate the corresponding binder value (see psk-binder below).  If this value

Related discussion:
text: Given that it's common to select the strongest cipher by default (thus likely using SHA-384 PRF) and that the default Hash associated with a PSK is SHA-256, simple upgrade of server and client to TLS 1.3 may cause handshake failures if only PSK key exchanges were configured and the existing implementor's note is followed.
Code change:
appropriate rules. If the client supports only the default hash and signature algorithms <del> (listed in this section), it MAY omit the signature_algorithms </del> <ins> (listed in this section), it MAY omit the "signature_algorithms" </ins> extension.  If the client does not support the default algorithms, or supports other hash and signature algorithms (and it is willing to use them for verifying messages sent by the server, i.e., server certificates and server key share), it MUST send the <del> signature_algorithms extension, listing the algorithms it is willing to accept. </del> <ins> "signature_algorithms" extension, listing the algorithms it is willing to accept. </ins> <del> If the client does not send the signature_algorithms extension, the </del> <ins> If the client does not send the "signature_algorithms" extension, the </ins> server MUST do the following: If the negotiated key exchange algorithm is one of (DHE_RSA,

Related discussion:
text: Not sure if the deprecation cutoff will be at 224 bits (~112 bit security level) or 255 bits (~128 bit security level) yet, so I've just done the former for now. This drops the old curves under 224 bits, updates the extension example bytes, and deprecates MD5.
As noted on-list, SHA1 can't be as easily dealt with here, so that'll be a topic for a separate changeset.
Here's a PR for this: Question: Are we dropping all curves <224 bits or <255 bits? (was consensus ever called on this specific number?)
There was not a specific WG consensus call on this point. I hope we don't need one and that we should keep the curves in that are used and trim the ones that aren't.
Good. In that case, I'll slash everything other than secp256r1 (prime256v1 / NIST P-256), secp384r1 (NIST P-384), secp521r1 (NIST P-521), and sect571r1 (NIST B-571). (plus, of course, new CFRG curves yet to be added) PR updated. URL URL
Based on the fact that apparently precisely zero servers actually use SHA-224 for signatures, can we drop that too while we're at it? (not an exaggeration; the scan cited in the last comment shows none)
I would drop it. spt On Jun 17, 2015, at 20:09, Dave Garrett EMAIL wrote:
OK. PR updated.
NAME This can be closed now that PR has been merged.