Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Integrity protection #3849

Closed
ekr opened this issue Jul 8, 2020 · 3 comments
Closed

Integrity protection #3849

ekr opened this issue Jul 8, 2020 · 3 comments
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.

Comments

@ekr
Copy link
Collaborator

ekr commented Jul 8, 2020

Should we perhaps not use integrity in S 12.1 when we are talking about null keys?
@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

I don't follow. Assuming that you are talking about the same Section 12.1 then I don't see any reference to null keys. Are you suggesting that we say something like:

Initial protection only exists to ensure that the sender of the packet is on the network path. The integrity protection provided for Initial and Retry packets guards against accidental modification of packets that might not be caught by the UDP checksum.

@martinthomson martinthomson added -transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. labels Jul 8, 2020
@ekr
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekr commented Jul 8, 2020

What I'm saying is that we should probably reserve the word "integrity" for when there are strong keys.

@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

Address in #3900.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@martinthomson @ekr