diff --git a/draft-ietf-quic-transport.md b/draft-ietf-quic-transport.md
index 7c4e9b9578..7a14ca06b5 100644
--- a/draft-ietf-quic-transport.md
+++ b/draft-ietf-quic-transport.md
@@ -2577,7 +2577,10 @@ discontinue use of the old server address.  If path validation fails, the client
 MUST continue sending all future packets to the server's original IP address.
 
 
-### Responding to Connection Migration
+### Migration to a Preferred Address
+
+A client that migrates to a preferred address MUST validate the address it
+chooses before migrating; see {{forgery-spa}}.
 
 A server might receive a packet addressed to its preferred IP address at any
 time after it accepts a connection.  If this packet contains a PATH_CHALLENGE
@@ -6357,6 +6360,217 @@ this behavior.  An endpoint can then immediately close the connection with a
 connection error of type PROTOCOL_VIOLATION; see {{immediate-close}}.
 
 
+## Request Forgery Attacks
+
+A request forgery attack occurs where an endpoint causes its peer to issue a
+request towards a victim, with the request controlled by the endpoint. Request
+forgery attacks aim to provide an attacker with access to capabilities of its
+peer that might otherwise be unavailable to the attacker. For a networking
+protocol, a request forgery attack is often used to exploit any implicit
+authorization conferred on the peer by the victim due to the peer's location in
+the network.
+
+For request forgery to be effective, an attacker needs to be able to influence
+what packets the peer sends and where these packets are sent. If an attacker
+can target a vulnerable service with a controlled payload, that service might
+perform actions that are attributed to the attacker's peer, but decided by the
+attacker.
+
+For example, cross-site request forgery {{?CSRF=DOI.10.1145/1455770.1455782}}
+exploits on the Web cause a client to issue requests that include authorization
+cookies {{?COOKIE=RFC6265}}, allowing one site access to information and
+actions that are intended to be restricted to a different site.
+
+As QUIC runs over UDP, the primary attack modality of concern is one where an
+attacker can select the address to which its peer sends UDP datagrams and can
+control some of the unprotected content of those packets. As much of the data
+sent by QUIC endpoints is protected, this includes control over ciphertext. An
+attack is successful if an attacker can cause a peer to send a UDP datagram to
+a host that will perform some action based on content in the datagram.
+
+This section discusses ways in which QUIC might be used for request forgery
+attacks.
+
+This section also describes limited countermeasures that can be implemented by
+QUIC endpoints. These mitigations can be employed unilaterally by a QUIC
+implementation or deployment, without potential targets for request forgery
+attacks taking action. However these countermeasures could be insufficient if
+UDP-based services do not properly authorize requests.
+
+
+### Control Options for Endpoints
+
+QUIC offers some opportunities for an attacker to influence or control where
+its peer sends UDP datagrams:
+
+* initial connection establishment ({{handshake}}), where a server is able to
+  choose where a client sends datagrams, for example by populating DNS records;
+
+* preferred addresses ({{preferred-address}}), where a server is able to choose
+  where a client sends datagrams; and
+
+* spoofed connection migrations ({{address-spoofing}}), where a client is able
+  to use source address spoofing to select where a server sends subsequent
+  datagrams.
+
+In all three cases, the attacker can cause its peer to send datagrams to a
+victim that might not understand QUIC. That is, these packets are sent by
+the peer prior to address validation; see {{address-validation}}.
+
+Outside of the encrypted portion of packets, QUIC offers an endpoint several
+options for controlling the content of UDP datagrams that its peer sends. The
+Destination Connection ID field offers direct control over bytes that appear
+early in packets sent by the peer; see {{connection-id}}. The Token field in
+Initial packets offers a server control over other bytes of Initial packets;
+see {{packet-initial}}.
+
+There are no measures in this version of QUIC to prevent indirect control over
+the encrypted portions of packets. It is necessary to assume that endpoints are
+able to control the contents of frames that a peer sends, especially those
+frames that convey application data, such as STREAM frames. Though this depends
+to some degree on details of the application protocol, some control is possible
+in many protocol usage contexts. As the attacker has access to packet
+protection keys, they are likely to be capable of predicting how a peer will
+encrypt future packets. Successful control over datagram content then only
+requires that the attacker be able to predict the packet number and placement
+of frames in packets with some amount of reliability.
+
+This section assumes that limiting control over datagram content is not
+feasible. The focus of the mitigations in subsequent sections is on limiting
+the ways in which datagrams that are sent prior to address validation can be
+used for request forgery.
+
+
+### Request Forgery with Client Initial Packets
+
+An attacker acting as a server can choose the IP address and port on which it
+advertises its availability, so Initial packets from clients are assumed to be
+available for use in this sort of attack. The address validation implicit in
+the handshake ensures that - for a new connection - a client will not send
+other types of packet to a destination that does not understand QUIC or is not
+willing to accept a QUIC connection.
+
+Initial packet protection (Section 5.2 of {{QUIC-TLS}}) makes it difficult for
+servers to control the content of Initial packets sent by clients. A client
+choosing an unpredictable Destination Connection ID ensures that servers are
+unable to control any of the encrypted portion of Initial packets from clients.
+
+However, the Token field is open to server control and does allow a server to
+use clients to mount request forgery attacks. Use of tokens provided with the
+NEW_TOKEN frame ({{validate-future}}) offers the only option for request
+forgery during connection establishment.
+
+Clients however are not obligated to use the NEW_TOKEN frame. Request forgery
+attacks that rely on the Token field can be avoided if clients send an empty
+Token field when the server address has changed from when the NEW_TOKEN frame
+was received.
+
+Therefore, clients SHOULD NOT send a token received in a NEW_TOKEN frame from
+one server address in an Initial packet that is sent to a different server
+address. As strict equality might reduce the utility of this mechanism, clients
+MAY employ heuristics that result in different server addresses being treated
+as equivalent, such as treating addresses with a shared prefix of sufficient
+length as being functionally equivalent (for instance, /24 in IPv4 or /56 in
+IPv6). In addition, clients SHOULD treat a preferred address that is
+successfully validated as equivalent to the address on which the connection was
+made; see {{preferred-address}}.
+
+Sending a Retry packet ({{packet-retry}}) offers a server the option to change
+the Token field. After sending a Retry, the server can also control the
+Destination Connection ID field of subsequent Initial packets from the client.
+This also might allow indirect control over the encrypted content of Initial
+packets. However, the exchange of a Retry packet validates the server's
+address, thereby preventing the use of subsequent Initial packets for request
+forgery.
+
+
+### Request Forgery with Preferred Addresses {#forgery-spa}
+
+Servers can specify a preferred address, which clients then migrate to after
+confirming the handshake; see {{preferred-address}}. The Destination Connection
+ID field of packets that the client sends to a preferred address can be used
+for request forgery.
+
+A client MUST NOT send non-probing frames to a preferred address prior to
+validating that address; see {{address-validation}}. This greatly reduces the
+options that a server has to control the encrypted portion of datagrams.
+
+This document does not offer any additional countermeasures that are specific
+to use of preferred addresses and can be implemented by endpoints. The generic
+measures described in {{forgery-generic}} could be used as further mitigation.
+
+
+### Request Forgery with Spoofed Migration
+
+Clients are able to present a spoofed source address as part of an apparent
+connection migration to cause a server to send datagrams to that address.
+
+The Destination Connection ID field in any packets that a server subsequently
+sends to this spoofed address can be used for request forgery. A client might
+also be able to influence the ciphertext.
+
+A server that only sends probing packets ({{probing}}) to an address prior to
+address validation provides an attacker with only limited control over the
+encrypted portion of datagrams. However, particularly for NAT rebinding, this
+can adversely affect performance. If the server sends frames carrying
+application data, an attacker might be able to control most of the content of
+datagrams.
+
+This document does not offer specific countermeasures that can be implemented
+by endpoints aside from the generic measures described in {{forgery-generic}}.
+However, countermeasures for address spoofing at the network level, in
+particular ingress filtering {{?BCP38=RFC2267}}, are especially effective
+against attacks that use spoofing and originate from an external network.
+
+
+### Generic Request Forgery Countermeasures {#forgery-generic}
+
+The most effective defense against request forgery attacks is to modify
+vulnerable services to use strong authentication. However, this is not always
+something that is within the control of a QUIC deployment. This section
+outlines some others steps that QUIC endpoints could take unilaterally. These
+additional steps are all discretionary as, depending on circumstances, they
+could interfere with or prevent legitimate uses.
+
+Services offered over loopback interfaces (that is, the IPv6 address ::1 or the
+IPv4 address 127.0.0.1) often lack proper authentication. Endpoints MAY prevent
+connection attempts or migration to a loopback address. Endpoints SHOULD NOT
+allow connections or migration to a loopback address if the same service was
+previously available at a different interface or if the address was provided by
+a service at a non-loopback address. Endpoints that depend on these
+capabilities could offer an option to disable these protections.
+
+Similarly, endpoints could regard a change in address to link-local address
+{{?RFC4291}} or an address in a private use range {{?RFC1918}} from a global,
+unique-local {{?RFC4193}}, or non-private address as a potential attempt at
+request forgery. Endpoints could refuse to use these addresses entirely, but
+that carries a significant risk of interfering with legitimate uses. Endpoints
+SHOULD NOT refuse to use an address unless they have specific knowledge about
+the network indicating that sending datagrams to unvalidated addresses in a
+given range is not safe.
+
+Endpoints MAY choose to reduce the risk of request forgery by not including
+values from NEW_TOKEN frames in Initial packets or by only sending probing
+frames in packets prior to completing address validation. Note that this does
+not prevent an attacker from using the Destination Connection ID field for an
+attack.
+
+Endpoints are not expected to have specific information about the location of
+servers that could be vulnerable targets of a request forgery attack. However,
+it might be possible over time to identify specific UDP ports that are common
+targets of attacks or particular patterns in datagrams that are used for
+attacks. Endpoints MAY choose to avoid sending datagrams to these ports or not
+send datagrams that match these patterns prior to validating the destination
+address. Endpoints MAY retire connection IDs containing patterns known to be
+problematic without using them.
+
+Note:
+
+: Modifying endpoints to apply these protections is more efficient than
+  deploying network-based protections, as endpoints do not need to perform
+  any additional processing when sending to an address that has been validated.
+
+
 ## Slowloris Attacks
 
 The attacks commonly known as Slowloris ({{SLOWLORIS}}) try to keep many