Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Retry integrity protection should not add new requirements to TLS API (#3366)

Kazuho Oku <> Tue, 21 January 2020 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F4B12007A for <>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:53:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1G2NuDvhDgj8 for <>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:53:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DD1212001A for <>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:53:11 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:53:10 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579643590; bh=tD7OOytUhDkd8AnJJebIR9jfsNH48sgNjfUnkgHCz3I=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=pB2mUUn/dWI3HOhG9vWaGtLfFHPuvAXQDOS74s6TYkGgkkuvOdM23OSGNd/mava/q J3MRlsQD84YeHU6iK7BlZ6XXUWZQmh9yKm5SAF3pf1fylY+GLTqXqRpGiORvfIfeuT 2s8yHd9a1CRLLmFLhGNMzAICm8cF83MWRtlPkKzQ=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3366/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Retry integrity protection should not add new requirements to TLS API (#3366)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e2772c6e25ae_456f3f7e90ccd960136684"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 21:53:18 -0000

I agree that this is not a must, even though it's about helping some of the implementations.

I would highly appreciate it if you could merge the PR before -25 ships, as I think changing the default key before shipping the first draft that adopts the GCM-based Retry protection would have the least friction.

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