Everything else Christian says here about QUIC is accurate. I see nothing there that suggests a problem in need of attention. I would also point to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers for a more nuanced treatment of the connection ID selection problem. On Thu, Dec 17, 2020, at 16:19, Christian Huitema wrote: > An informational document documenting a series > of past attacks would be interesting and educational. The kind of rule > making proposed in the draft, on the other hand, would be mostly harmful. ...but this is the most important message. Removing Section 5 and all that depends on it would make this a better document. Separately, I found the list of potential problems in Section 4 to be approximately OK, though it lacked any mention of a need to synchronize changes across protocol layers. I acknowledge that that is about use rather than generation, but that is quite relevant here too. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
