Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is it OK to send a server cleartext packet after the client has sent a finished message? (#829)

Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com> Fri, 06 October 2017 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 913FD1349F9 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Oct 2017 09:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.02 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 sn1kWwpugzlp for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Oct 2017 09:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from o10.sgmail.github.com (o10.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0D801349EF for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Oct 2017 09:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=dT4lTo/ddHWwwt6XwKA1tRyaDJw=; b=LYwEDSxCBmHaL01A 6n8qP+cqzysW4MbihiY20oRfaXjo19N1ngNjWgkEebtrquFozo22COsBkN1fjlvC HTIs5nFC4d6/o+CCKZOzdvosKYl8JyeiuOxCO/igHeYgT7NxS50KcPi+3MkA+WvU 7uVbv/rIOktOAQClEuT5mN/ZNqc=
Received: by filter0215p1iad2.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0215p1iad2-13918-59D7A97B-2A 2017-10-06 16:04:11.679116492 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.17]) by ismtpd0010p1iad2.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id Vw9dpu22QliuDA8Mktxx-w for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Oct 2017 16:04:11.655 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2017 16:04:11 +0000
From: Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abb4aecef1a9b575a8b19d32af8a3c87ac7a1c2d9992cf0000000115ef6b7b92a169ce0fa74353@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/829/334798431@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/829@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/829@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is it OK to send a server cleartext packet after the client has sent a finished message? (#829)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_59d7a97b9b2cd_b60e3fda81bbef2c238b5"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: huitema
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak39NKggY9hm8yJunlcXHnJ6LsbnhcBfPM2JF6 9czlKF2S5fqc3xostlilENtLMvQ92NmohFKfElgImz/hM6Xy4kOeBjRokzoSbL93O+MhyyrTR9+AZp wiV6FL6kYt74pQsE96Fr+CHO3htjZ/ccUegtf5M+/2Bp2vHlm9IAIECZ+CwY4HodwLhsnEXmqDL47N U=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/56Yfn0OdUCL9cMEHPLHVdARD7gI>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 06 Oct 2017 16:04:18 -0000

@kazuho You wrote:

> ACK for the cleartext packet that carried ClientFinished was sent in a cleartext packet that carried 
> ServerFinished.

That's not what I see in the logs. I see:

  -> Client initial (carries client hello)
  <- Server Clear Text (several message carry server flight, including server finished. Message embed 
       ACK of Client Initial
  -> Client clear text: carries client finished, and ACK of server clear text messages
  <- Server Clear Text: only carries an ACK Frame for the client clear text.

When the server sends the last server clear text message, it has already received the client clear text, since it acknowledges it. According to Ian's presentation of "ACK rules", ACKing a message means that the message was not just received but also processed -- which logically means processing the TLS state machine. I don't see what advantage there is to sending that last acknowledgement in clear text.

-- 
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/829#issuecomment-334798431