jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
hopefully addresses issue
I don't think "the same port number as would be used for the same application over TCP" is necessary general-purpose guidance. I would argue for something more like:
Copying from URL There's no requirement that servers use a particular UDP port for HTTP/QUIC or any other QUIC traffic. Using Alt-Svc, the server is able to pick and advertise any port number and a compliant client will handle it just fine. That's already the case, and isn't part of this issue. updates the HTTP draft to highlight this, increasing the odds that implementations will test and support that case. This issue is to track that it might actually be desirable from a privacy standpoint for servers to pick arbitrary port numbers and perhaps even rotate them periodically (though that requires coordination with their Alt-Svc advertisements and lifetimes, which could be challenging) in order to make it more difficult for a network observer to classify traffic (and therefore more difficult to ossify). On the other hand, as we're wrestling with in each of these privacy/manageability debates, removing easy network visibility into the likely protocol by using arbitrary port numbers means that middleboxes will probably resort to other means of attempting to identify protocols and potentially doing it badly, which could result in even worse ossification. (E.g. indexing into the TLS ClientHello to find the ALPN list, then panicking on a different handshake protocol.) There's further discussion on the original issue, but this belongs in the ops drafts, not the protocol drafts.
this kind-of-but-not-really-duplicates , which I'll go ahead and close.
Actually, it's an exact duplicate, given that it points to the same issue. ;-) My bad.
NAME can you check if PR addresses this issue sufficiently? At least for the applicability doc...
Now also PR for the manageability statement.
and are a (ready for -03) treatment of this; however, we should consider if we want to say more, e.g. such as general guidance / recommendations for using ALPN in QUIC mappings, for instance? Keeping this open to track.
created new issue for ALPN

Related discussion:
text: Connection IDs), the short header exposes at most only a single Connection ID. <del> 6.1. </del> <ins> 7.1. </ins> QUIC supports a server-generated Connection ID, transmitted to the client during connection establishment (see Section 6.1 of QUIC).
Code change:
hopefully addresses issue
I don't think "the same port number as would be used for the same application over TCP" is necessary general-purpose guidance. I would argue for something more like:
Copying from URL There's no requirement that servers use a particular UDP port for HTTP/QUIC or any other QUIC traffic. Using Alt-Svc, the server is able to pick and advertise any port number and a compliant client will handle it just fine. That's already the case, and isn't part of this issue. updates the HTTP draft to highlight this, increasing the odds that implementations will test and support that case. This issue is to track that it might actually be desirable from a privacy standpoint for servers to pick arbitrary port numbers and perhaps even rotate them periodically (though that requires coordination with their Alt-Svc advertisements and lifetimes, which could be challenging) in order to make it more difficult for a network observer to classify traffic (and therefore more difficult to ossify). On the other hand, as we're wrestling with in each of these privacy/manageability debates, removing easy network visibility into the likely protocol by using arbitrary port numbers means that middleboxes will probably resort to other means of attempting to identify protocols and potentially doing it badly, which could result in even worse ossification. (E.g. indexing into the TLS ClientHello to find the ALPN list, then panicking on a different handshake protocol.) There's further discussion on the original issue, but this belongs in the ops drafts, not the protocol drafts.
this kind-of-but-not-really-duplicates , which I'll go ahead and close.
Actually, it's an exact duplicate, given that it points to the same issue. ;-) My bad.
NAME can you check if PR addresses this issue sufficiently? At least for the applicability doc...
Now also PR for the manageability statement.
and are a (ready for -03) treatment of this; however, we should consider if we want to say more, e.g. such as general guidance / recommendations for using ALPN in QUIC mappings, for instance? Keeping this open to track.
created new issue for ALPN

Related discussion:
text: The best way to obscure an encoding is to appear random to observers, which is most rigorously achieved with encryption. <del> 6.2. </del> <ins> 7.2. </ins> While sufficiently robust connection ID generation schemes will mitigate linkability issues, they do not provide full protection.
Code change:
hopefully addresses issue
I don't think "the same port number as would be used for the same application over TCP" is necessary general-purpose guidance. I would argue for something more like:
Copying from URL There's no requirement that servers use a particular UDP port for HTTP/QUIC or any other QUIC traffic. Using Alt-Svc, the server is able to pick and advertise any port number and a compliant client will handle it just fine. That's already the case, and isn't part of this issue. updates the HTTP draft to highlight this, increasing the odds that implementations will test and support that case. This issue is to track that it might actually be desirable from a privacy standpoint for servers to pick arbitrary port numbers and perhaps even rotate them periodically (though that requires coordination with their Alt-Svc advertisements and lifetimes, which could be challenging) in order to make it more difficult for a network observer to classify traffic (and therefore more difficult to ossify). On the other hand, as we're wrestling with in each of these privacy/manageability debates, removing easy network visibility into the likely protocol by using arbitrary port numbers means that middleboxes will probably resort to other means of attempting to identify protocols and potentially doing it badly, which could result in even worse ossification. (E.g. indexing into the TLS ClientHello to find the ALPN list, then panicking on a different handshake protocol.) There's further discussion on the original issue, but this belongs in the ops drafts, not the protocol drafts.
this kind-of-but-not-really-duplicates , which I'll go ahead and close.
Actually, it's an exact duplicate, given that it points to the same issue. ;-) My bad.
NAME can you check if PR addresses this issue sufficiently? At least for the applicability doc...
Now also PR for the manageability statement.
and are a (ready for -03) treatment of this; however, we should consider if we want to say more, e.g. such as general guidance / recommendations for using ALPN in QUIC mappings, for instance? Keeping this open to track.
created new issue for ALPN

Related discussion:
text: migrations to attempt to increase the number of simultaneous migrations at a given time, or through other means. <del> 6.3. </del> <ins> 7.3. </ins> QUIC provides a Server Retry packet that can be sent by a server in response to the Client Initial packet.  The server may choose a new
Code change:
hopefully addresses issue
I don't think "the same port number as would be used for the same application over TCP" is necessary general-purpose guidance. I would argue for something more like:
Copying from URL There's no requirement that servers use a particular UDP port for HTTP/QUIC or any other QUIC traffic. Using Alt-Svc, the server is able to pick and advertise any port number and a compliant client will handle it just fine. That's already the case, and isn't part of this issue. updates the HTTP draft to highlight this, increasing the odds that implementations will test and support that case. This issue is to track that it might actually be desirable from a privacy standpoint for servers to pick arbitrary port numbers and perhaps even rotate them periodically (though that requires coordination with their Alt-Svc advertisements and lifetimes, which could be challenging) in order to make it more difficult for a network observer to classify traffic (and therefore more difficult to ossify). On the other hand, as we're wrestling with in each of these privacy/manageability debates, removing easy network visibility into the likely protocol by using arbitrary port numbers means that middleboxes will probably resort to other means of attempting to identify protocols and potentially doing it badly, which could result in even worse ossification. (E.g. indexing into the TLS ClientHello to find the ALPN list, then panicking on a different handshake protocol.) There's further discussion on the original issue, but this belongs in the ops drafts, not the protocol drafts.
this kind-of-but-not-really-duplicates , which I'll go ahead and close.
Actually, it's an exact duplicate, given that it points to the same issue. ;-) My bad.
NAME can you check if PR addresses this issue sufficiently? At least for the applicability doc...
Now also PR for the manageability statement.
and are a (ready for -03) treatment of this; however, we should consider if we want to say more, e.g. such as general guidance / recommendations for using ALPN in QUIC mappings, for instance? Keeping this open to track.
created new issue for ALPN

Related discussion:
text: that the load balancer will redirect the next Client Initial packet to a different server in that pool. <del> 7. </del> <ins> 8. </ins> Versioning in QUIC may change the protocol's behavior completely, except for the meaning of a few header fields that have been declared
Code change:
hopefully addresses issue
I don't think "the same port number as would be used for the same application over TCP" is necessary general-purpose guidance. I would argue for something more like:
Copying from URL There's no requirement that servers use a particular UDP port for HTTP/QUIC or any other QUIC traffic. Using Alt-Svc, the server is able to pick and advertise any port number and a compliant client will handle it just fine. That's already the case, and isn't part of this issue. updates the HTTP draft to highlight this, increasing the odds that implementations will test and support that case. This issue is to track that it might actually be desirable from a privacy standpoint for servers to pick arbitrary port numbers and perhaps even rotate them periodically (though that requires coordination with their Alt-Svc advertisements and lifetimes, which could be challenging) in order to make it more difficult for a network observer to classify traffic (and therefore more difficult to ossify). On the other hand, as we're wrestling with in each of these privacy/manageability debates, removing easy network visibility into the likely protocol by using arbitrary port numbers means that middleboxes will probably resort to other means of attempting to identify protocols and potentially doing it badly, which could result in even worse ossification. (E.g. indexing into the TLS ClientHello to find the ALPN list, then panicking on a different handshake protocol.) There's further discussion on the original issue, but this belongs in the ops drafts, not the protocol drafts.
this kind-of-but-not-really-duplicates , which I'll go ahead and close.
Actually, it's an exact duplicate, given that it points to the same issue. ;-) My bad.
NAME can you check if PR addresses this issue sufficiently? At least for the applicability doc...
Now also PR for the manageability statement.
and are a (ready for -03) treatment of this; however, we should consider if we want to say more, e.g. such as general guidance / recommendations for using ALPN in QUIC mappings, for instance? Keeping this open to track.
created new issue for ALPN

Related discussion:
text: specification QUIC-TLS.  This split is performed to enable light- weight versioning with different cryptographic handshakes. <del> 8. </del> <ins> 9. </ins> This document has no actions for IANA. <del> 9. </del> <ins> 10. </ins> See the security considerations in QUIC and QUIC-TLS; the security considerations for the underlying transport protocol are relevant for
Code change:
hopefully addresses issue
I don't think "the same port number as would be used for the same application over TCP" is necessary general-purpose guidance. I would argue for something more like:
Copying from URL There's no requirement that servers use a particular UDP port for HTTP/QUIC or any other QUIC traffic. Using Alt-Svc, the server is able to pick and advertise any port number and a compliant client will handle it just fine. That's already the case, and isn't part of this issue. updates the HTTP draft to highlight this, increasing the odds that implementations will test and support that case. This issue is to track that it might actually be desirable from a privacy standpoint for servers to pick arbitrary port numbers and perhaps even rotate them periodically (though that requires coordination with their Alt-Svc advertisements and lifetimes, which could be challenging) in order to make it more difficult for a network observer to classify traffic (and therefore more difficult to ossify). On the other hand, as we're wrestling with in each of these privacy/manageability debates, removing easy network visibility into the likely protocol by using arbitrary port numbers means that middleboxes will probably resort to other means of attempting to identify protocols and potentially doing it badly, which could result in even worse ossification. (E.g. indexing into the TLS ClientHello to find the ALPN list, then panicking on a different handshake protocol.) There's further discussion on the original issue, but this belongs in the ops drafts, not the protocol drafts.
this kind-of-but-not-really-duplicates , which I'll go ahead and close.
Actually, it's an exact duplicate, given that it points to the same issue. ;-) My bad.
NAME can you check if PR addresses this issue sufficiently? At least for the applicability doc...
Now also PR for the manageability statement.
and are a (ready for -03) treatment of this; however, we should consider if we want to say more, e.g. such as general guidance / recommendations for using ALPN in QUIC mappings, for instance? Keeping this open to track.
created new issue for ALPN

Related discussion:
text: connection SHOULD fail to allow the application to explicitly handle fallback to a less-secure alternative.  See fallback. <del> 10. </del> <ins> 11. </ins> This work is partially supported by the European Commission under Horizon 2020 grant agreement no. 688421 Measurement and Architecture
Code change:
URL , can we be more specific here about the control signal we are talking about is QUIC protocol control signal not really other kind of control signal that the network might have? also here it is compared with TCP, should it also mention TCP with TLS?
I added the term "transport-layer" in PR . Does that help. I don't think TLS needs to be mentioned here.

Related discussion:
text: QUIC is an end-to-end transport protocol.  No information in the protocol header, even that which can be inspected, is mutable by the network.  This is achieved through integrity protection of the wire <del> image WIRE-IMAGE.  Encryption of most control signaling means that less information is visible to the network than is the case with TCP. </del> <ins> image WIRE-IMAGE.  Encryption of most transport-layer control signaling means that less information is visible to the network than is the case with TCP. </ins> Integrity protection can also simplify troubleshooting, because none of the nodes on the network path can modify transport layer
Code change:
hi NAME NAME NAME PTAnotherL, reviewed the thread and I do think an additional 9065 ref here would be helpful.

Related discussion:
text: it describes what is and is not possible with the QUIC transport protocol as defined. <ins> This document focuses solely on network management practices that observe traffic on the wire.  Replacement of troubleshooting based on observation with active measurement techniques, for example, is therefore out of scope.  A more generalized treatment of network management operations on encrypted transports is given in RFC9065. </ins> QUIC-specific terminology used in this document is defined in QUIC- TRANSPORT.
Code change:
Could the first 1200-byte QUIC packet be used to suspect a QUIC connection establishment ? [MK] Yes, I think if you look at the first packet as a whole you can be reasonably sure that you look at a quic packet. I guess this is an assumption throughout the whole document, as section 2.4 says: "New QUIC connections are established using a handshake, which is distinguishable on the wire and contains some information that can be passively observed." [MK] Do we need to say more? EV> hummm I guess not even if the text in 2.4 is rather generic while the point in 3.1 is really specific. Perhaps adding which handshake properties are 'distinguishable' already in section 2.4 ?
proposes to fix this with a forward reference.

Related discussion:
text: 2.4. New QUIC connections are established using a handshake, which is <del> distinguishable on the wire and contains some information that can be passively observed. </del> <ins> distinguishable on the wire (see sec-identifying for details), and contains some information that can be passively observed. </ins> To illustrate the information visible in the QUIC wire image during the handshake, we first show the general communication pattern
Code change:
"Here we assume a bidirectional observer", let's also state that there is no section about unidirectional observer ?
Not sure if we add something because I think it okay to state assumptions...
"unless noted" states that we'll note when something is unidirectionally observable, I'm reviewing the language now to see if we missed any...

Related discussion:
text: The client's TLS ClientHello may contain a Server Name Indication (SNI) RFC6066 extension, by which the client reveals the name of the server it intends to connect to, in order to allow the server to <del> present a certificate based on that name.  It may also contain an Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) RFC7301 extension, by which the client exposes the names of application-layer protocols it supports; an observer can deduce that one of those protocols will be used if the connection continues. </del> <ins> present a certificate based on that name.  SNI information is available to unidirectional observers on the client-to-server path, if present. The TLS ClientHello may also contain an Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) RFC7301 extension, by which the client exposes the names of application-layer protocols it supports; an observer can deduce that one of those protocols will be used if the connection continues. </ins> Work is currently underway in the TLS working group to encrypt the contents of the ClientHello in TLS 1.3 TLS-ECH.  This would make SNI-
Code change:
"Here we assume a bidirectional observer", let's also state that there is no section about unidirectional observer ?
Not sure if we add something because I think it okay to state assumptions...
"unless noted" states that we'll note when something is unidirectionally observable, I'm reviewing the language now to see if we missed any...

Related discussion:
text: recognition of the handshake, as illustrated in handshake.  It can also be inferred during the flow's lifetime, if the endpoints use the spin bit facility described below and in Section 17.3.1 of QUIC- <del> TRANSPORT. </del> <ins> TRANSPORT.  RTT measurement is available to unidirectional observers when the spin bit is enabled. </ins> 3.8.1.
Code change:
Tries to I resisted the urge to reference the QUIC-LB draft, which isn't adopted. The major substantive change is that I removed the prohibition on non-routing information in the CID. I'm happy to discuss this if people have object.
LGTM. will go ahead and land this, then fix up the lint issues.
NAME missed this during the inconsistency, will fix in working copy
(this is done)
BTW, this was meant to address
Moving URL to the ops repo.
see also -- in any case the text that is there now is not great.
NAME can you please review the existing text (orginially provided by NAME and state what else is needed? Please have also a look at issue
This is a bit OBE, but I think there might still be value in discussing how a server implementer should think about connection IDs. Fortunately, NAME has been doing a bunch of work on this in his load balancer draft. I would suggest that we leave this issue open, and either point to the LB draft or use text from it.
fixed this
Write section to provide guidance; maybe in the same section than guidance in port selection in general

Related discussion:
text: that the load balancer will redirect the next Client Initial packet to a different server in that pool. <del> 6.3. QUIC provides for multiple Server and Client Connection IDs to be used simultaneously by a given connection, which allows seamless connection migration when one of the endpoints changes IP address and/or UDP port.  Section 6.11.5 of QUIC describes how to use this facility to reduce the risk of exposing a link among these addresses to observers on the network.  However, analysis of the lifetimes of six-tuples (source and destination addresses as well as the migrated CID) may expose these links anyway. In practice, a finite set of flows will be undergoing migration within any one time window as seen from any given observation point in the network, and any migration must keep at least one endpoint address constant during the migration.  Because of this, a key insight here is that this finite set of flows represents the anonymity set for any one flow undergoing migration within it.  For endpoints with low volume, this anonymity set will be necessarily small, so there remains a significant risk of linkage exposure through timing-based analysis. The most efficient mitigation for these attacks is operational, by increasing the size of the anonymity set as seen from a passive observer in the Internet, either by using a load balancing architecture that loads more flows onto a single server-side address, by coordinating the timing of migrations to attempt to increase the number of simultaneous migrations at a given time, or through other means. </del> 7. Versioning in QUIC may change the protocol's behavior completely,