Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] use a HANDSHAKE_DONE frame to drive the handshake to confirmation (#3145)

David Schinazi <notifications@github.com> Sun, 17 November 2019 03:13 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 0C1F4120833 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 19:13:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 Lu2UfMJ3_8kO for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 19:13:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-3.smtp.github.com (out-3.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48F6E120046 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 19:13:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 19:13:37 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1573960417; bh=PfnuzYBA/1TG+NOEIheBNIZbRsmhybKru72LkYYhn6w=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=PskrbkBx1Snbks6YzpnYIsuxP67O3tuCHXPFXj5F8Qql6mJsFeaObpesR5anTMeMe ATcu+5JWcGv86zttD2snQRDtbU/rfG4vHY1jg7v0rJHvOip785nrACsEk4INEGhHrV cKbmav5MnGeEoEEHPUyZbWXc5Dru6jZSWv0wQeds=
From: David Schinazi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5ZO3TWFSJEEE7A5PN33XWWDEVBNHHB475TUU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3145/review/317998542@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3145@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3145@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] use a HANDSHAKE_DONE frame to drive the handshake to confirmation (#3145)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dd0bae169f62_6acd3fe24decd96013640b9"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
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/0KQMsRcV38Ayscxpi8G0Tba05KA>
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: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 03:13:40 -0000

DavidSchinazi requested changes on this pull request.

I support this PR, modulo minor changes.

> @@ -385,13 +385,9 @@ perspective of the endpoint in question.
 
 ### Handshake Confirmed {#handshake-confirmed}
 
-In this document, the TLS handshake is considered confirmed at an endpoint when
-the following two conditions are met: the handshake is complete, and the
-endpoint has received an acknowledgment for a packet sent with 1-RTT keys.
-This second condition can be implemented by recording the lowest packet number
-sent with 1-RTT keys, and the highest value of the Largest Acknowledged field
-in any received 1-RTT ACK frame: once the latter is higher than or equal to the
-former, the handshake is confirmed.
+In this document, the TLS handshake is considered confirmed at the server when
+the handshake completes. At the client, the handshake is considered confirmed
+when the HANDSHAKE_DONE frame is received.

nit: could we say "when *a* HANDSHAKE_DONE frame is received."

> @@ -5495,6 +5497,16 @@ Reason Phrase:
   This SHOULD be a UTF-8 encoded string {{!RFC3629}}.
 
 
+## HANDSHAKE_DONE frame {#handshake-done-frame}
+
+The server uses the HANDSHAKE_DONE frame (type=0x1e) to signal confirmation of
+the handshake to the client.  The HANDSHAKE_DONE frame contains no additional
+fields.
+
+This frame can only be sent by the server. A server MUST treat receipt of a
+HANDSHAKE_DONE frame as a connection error of type PROTOCOL_VIOLATION.
+
+

Can we add the following paragraph to this section:

```
Clients MAY treat receipt of an acknowledgment for a packet it sent with 1-RTT
keys as receipt of a HANDSHAKE_DONE frame.  This can be implemented by
recording the lowest packet number sent with 1-RTT keys, and the highest
value of the Largest Acknowledged field in any received 1-RTT ACK frame:
once the latter is higher than or equal to the former, the handshake can be
confirmed.
```

> @@ -5495,6 +5497,16 @@ Reason Phrase:
   This SHOULD be a UTF-8 encoded string {{!RFC3629}}.
 
 
+## HANDSHAKE_DONE frame {#handshake-done-frame}
+
+The server uses the HANDSHAKE_DONE frame (type=0x1e) to signal confirmation of
+the handshake to the client.  The HANDSHAKE_DONE frame contains no additional
+fields.
+
+This frame can only be sent by the server. A server MUST treat receipt of a

Can we add the following sentence of the start of this paragraph:

```
Servers MUST NOT send a HANDSHAKE_DONE frame before confirming
the handshake.
```

-- 
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/pull/3145#pullrequestreview-317998542