Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding requirement seems to be incorrect. (#3053)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Fri, 11 October 2019 02:42 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706FE1200E6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NoKBSdAhcZBb for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-6.smtp.github.com (out-6.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A3B8120041 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137CE1C0288 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1570761751; bh=Q+BeAzPMwOn3+FmuqyFGHRlOpjj10L1qVEogEc8dNb8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=PtQZ0xwt3bSx60PEl1ideaik0sj7m95rmdZ/PljwyHPVEpQgVW9XHqsrKYSnU3aem uU8KF4cNykgL1pXpWDsCv/t9h1PZ3wIeY+cC0jMre38obGmMRMxGWoxFVF6Qhe9J1b Hzm9wSiCM7mnS1NPAS/LP1fTGHH+3+9qYjECTwF0=
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:42:31 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2X5WZBXE4DCEGXCQV3VUPJPEVBNHHB3EM4KU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3053/540875950@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3053@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3053@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding requirement seems to be incorrect. (#3053)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d9fec1754db_1c403f82142cd9602310bd"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/-vWOx8e1SSp7QLLIV8nAQRKdUjI>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 02:42:34 -0000

The change makes it clear that if you send Initial+0-RTT then you should still pad to 1200.  That's all.  Previously, you would not have been required to pad, which would have been bad.

Most of the debate and discussion is about the knock-on consequences of applying the broader rule, which I don't think are that important.  And yes, the whole "when do you discard Initial keys" thing does confound things a little.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3053#issuecomment-540875950