Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do Initial secrets change after Retry packet? (#2823)

ianswett <> Wed, 16 October 2019 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34CB212020A for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RBzCXFj5WMiQ for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CD0C12012D for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 656C52C3365 for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571246156; bh=Q55EVpRZcLew/QYyElCS2HdWHzfn/wIE6vhCcjycohc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=RyJ7WeJf+oOHT+DUnY3/j0lmMt/SVwhulP0PmVpz1PrQ5Yo8EbxaQ0pG7vbbzK5AP JxQzF1bLiOs/aDAi8DcGstqW1v4WqRjMo/ipKPe75HGknZE1tOonkf9p2kUg7GbZQ0 hLo+Iagg8rV2/oqBIbbOCGC9qItNjM5UgXi2h6bI=
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:15:56 -0700
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2823/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do Initial secrets change after Retry packet? (#2823)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5da7504c54e6a_2a743fcac5ecd96451924"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:15:59 -0000

One new point that came up in the discussion of #3014 is that if every packet is self-contained(ie: option 2), it would be possible for the server to send a CONNECTION_CLOSE to terminate a handshake that is doomed to failure quickly, opposed to waiting for the handshake to timeout.

If my PR is accepted, the server would not be able to send a CONNECTION_CLOSE.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: