Draft: draft-ietf-quic-manageability

Commentary: addresses 
 " QUIC 's linkability resistance ensures that a deliberate connection migration is accompanied by a change in the connection ID and necessitate that connection ID aware DDoS defense system must have the same information about connection IDs as the load balancer { { ? I - D.ietf - quic - load - balancers } } . This may be complicated where mitigation and load balancing environments are logically separate . " This is insufficient . Even the load balancer is only able to identify the end server , not the connection . 
 On a related note , the suggestion to use the " first 8 bytes " of a server 's connection ID is somewhat strange . Why not observe the CIDL it 's using in long headers , or just have common configuration ? 
 How about if we just remove any wording about load balancers here ? Like this maybe : 
 On the 8 bytes : I actually not sure where this comes from , however , I assume that the thinking was that using the first 8 bytes might be good enough to avoid collisions if you do n't know the connection ID length . But I guess we can remove it or add some more explanation ... any thoughts ? 
 If you read the Retry Services section of QUIC - LB , you 'll see that there is no dependence on the Connection ID encoding at all . It is a common format for   that allows servers to ( at a minimum ) extract the original CIDs necessary for verification . Certainly , no device should drop packets simply because the CID has changed , which is maybe what you 're trying to say here ? But I 'm not sure that this is a DDoS thing . 
 The point is when a DDoS attack is on - going you want to make sure that on - going connections keep running while new connections are handled more carefully . So you have to be flow aware . However , maybe it 's acceptable if connectivity breaks during a DDoS when the 5 tuple changes ... ? Otherwise you would need to be CID aware . 
 The VN section suggests that observers not use the version number to detect QUIC . Would it be futile to ask them to admit QUIC versions they do n't recognize rather than drop them ? 
 Probably . 
 Not sure . Depends on the function you implement . I guess there could be security functions that decide to only allow certain versions ... not sure if that is justified but I do n't think we can stop it . 
 Any further opinions here ? 
 We can stop it with greasing , I guess . IMO the draft should specify best practices that do n't break extensibility and if people do n't follow it it 's on them . That 's the approach I took in QUIC - LB . 
 The best practice is to not block any unknown traffic as blocking hinders evolution . However , I guess there might be security reasons why some will not do that . I guess allowing for certain versions of QUIC is better than blocking UDP entirely ... ? 
 +1 ... I do n't think that putting text in this document saying " do n't wholesale block versions of QUIC you do n't understand " will actually change the behavior of the boxes that will ship this behavior , since drop - unknown is taken as a security best practice . But I still think it 's worth putting that advice in the document nonetheless , if only to have " I told you so " in an RFC . ( I do still tend to think that we 'll see only two behaviors emerge in the wild : ( 1 ) permit anything with a QUIC wire image since there 's not much to grab on to there ( and rely on the LB implementation to eat DoS hiding behind that wire image ) and ( 2 ) block anything that smells like QUIC ( because it is easy to implement in the default case and it forces fallback to TCP , which already has lots of running security monitoring code ) . ) 
 will work up a PR for us to discuss 
 In manageability : " Integrity Protection of the Wire Image { # wire - integrity } As soon as the cryptographic context is established , all information in the QUIC header , including information exposed in the packet header , is integrity protected . Further , information that was sent and exposed in handshake packets sent before the cryptographic context was established are validated later during the cryptographic handshake . Therefore , devices on path can not alter any information or bits in QUIC packet headers , since alteration of header information will lead to a failed integrity check at the receiver , and can even lead to connection termination . " This is n't precise . The Initial packet is not meaningfully integrity - protected , but the contents of the CRYPTO frame ( and the connection IDs ) are . An on - path attacker could , for instance , change the ClientHello 's Packet Number to from ' 0 ' to ' 1 ' and then adjust the ACK frame from ' 1 ' to ' 0 ' . ( Why would one do this ? ) 
 Is the ACK frame in the case not encrypted ... ? 
 The Initial is decryptable by anyone , and so could be rewritten . 
 Okay . What do we want to write here now ? 
 how about " alter any information or bits in QUIC packet headers , since alteration ... " changing to : " alter any information or bits in QUIC packet headers , except specific parts of Initial packets , since alteration ... " 
 WFM . I can change that as soon as your PR landed ( or you add it to your PR ) .
Paragraph (version A):
As soon as the cryptographic context is established, all information
in the QUIC header, including exposed information, is integrity
protected.  Further, information that was sent and exposed in
handshake packets sent before the cryptographic context was
established are validated later during the cryptographic handshake.
Therefore, devices on path cannot alter any information or bits in
QUIC packet headers, since alteration of header information will lead
to a failed integrity check at the receiver, and can even lead to
connection termination.
Paragraph (version B):
As soon as the cryptographic context is established, all information
in the QUIC header, including exposed information, is integrity
protected.  Further, information that was sent and exposed in
handshake packets sent before the cryptographic context was
established are validated later during the cryptographic handshake.
Therefore, devices on path cannot alter any information or bits in
QUIC packet headers, except specific parts of Initial packets, since
alteration of header information will lead to a failed integrity
check at the receiver, and can even lead to connection termination.