Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Output of the discard keys design team (#2673)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Wed, 08 May 2019 23:14 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 DA92B1201AE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 16:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 8VbrUTN5IlgA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 16:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86FB51201A8 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2019 16:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 16:14:01 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1557357241; bh=RvjpsUkJ/uVrN5OrfzKj/bSfGffXouob+9Tdy3pEbas=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=gmvx0lIlXFAH9hEg9X1b9oVgbueLDz6oBn/7ZCe7OmAa+bebpVKpCAOwp5R4+CtW6 p9k0t0ZBiht42kt7j9Q4C9FaE/CzcQGZTG4gaaEhWnN6JtD4+ngMx9bVvFW54hlSM6 T7zoz+OKKRQ4yB0RqOA4prh6WaLfR7pdO04Olhm0=
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5X6ZIND4XOXW3IE6524CKTTEVBNHHBUUAEMU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2673/review/235192740@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2673@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2673@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Output of the discard keys design team (#2673)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cd362b9a9971_6f763fa9172cd968165318"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/4Bx33eZwpeEUbM62vMFWAc488Fw>
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: Wed, 08 May 2019 23:14:05 -0000

MikeBishop commented on this pull request.



> +previous handshake messages have not been modified.  Note that the handshake
+does not complete on both endpoints simultaneously, therefore any requirements
+placed on endpoints based on the completion of the handshake are specific to
+the handshake being complete from the perspective of the endpoint in question.
+
+
+### Handshake Confirmed {#handshake-confirmed}
+
+In this document, the TLS handshake is considered confirmed when both of 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 tracking 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 the former, the
+handshake is confirmed.
+

Also I believe we've been using "greater than" instead of "higher than" when talking about numbers.

> +### Discarding 0-RTT Keys
+
+Clients SHOULD discard 0-RTT keys as soon as they install 1-RTT keys, since
+they have no use after that moment.
+
+Clients do not send 0-RTT packets after sending a 1-RTT
+packet ({{using-early-data}}).  Therefore a server MAY discard 0-RTT keys as
+soon as it receives a 1-RTT packet.  However, due to packet reordering, a
+0-RTT packet could arrive after a 1-RTT packet.  Servers MAY temporarily retain
+0-RTT keys to allow decrypting reordered packets without requiring their
+contents to be retransmitted with 1-RTT keys.  Servers MUST discard 0-RTT keys
+within three times the Probe Timeout (PTO, see {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}) after
+receiving a 1-RTT packet.  A server MAY discard 0-RTT keys earlier if it
+determines that it has received all 0-RTT packets, which can be done by
+keeping track of packet numbers.
+

Maybe be even more explicit and say how?  "...if it has received all packets with packet numbers less than the packet number of the lowest 1-RTT packet received" or something less wordy but similar.

> @@ -1086,25 +1097,44 @@ before the final TLS handshake messages are received.  A client will be unable
 to decrypt 1-RTT packets from the server, whereas a server will be able to
 decrypt 1-RTT packets from the client.
 
-However, a server MUST NOT process data from incoming 1-RTT protected packets
-before verifying either the client Finished message or - in the case that the
-server has chosen to use a pre-shared key - the pre-shared key binder (see
-Section 4.2.11 of {{!TLS13}}).  Verifying these values provides the server with
-an assurance that the ClientHello has not been modified.  Packets protected with
+Even though 1-RTT keys are available to a server after receiving the first
+handshake messages from a client, it is missing assurances on the state of the
+client:
+
+- The client is not authenticated, unless the server has chosen to use a
+pre-shared key and validated the client's pre-shared key binder; see
+Section 4.2.11 of {{!TLS13}}.
+- The client has not demonstrated liveness.

...unless the server did a Retry.  I'd follow the example of the last bullet and make all of these "might not be authenticated, unless..." and "might not have demonstrated liveness...."

-- 
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/2673#pullrequestreview-235192740