Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make transport parameter ID and length varint (#3294)

Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com> Thu, 12 December 2019 04:25 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 62A1A120090 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:25:51 -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 O75leFyeZd9r for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:25:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0992120059 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:25:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-3a0df0f.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-3a0df0f.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.92]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1620FC602DF for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:25:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1576124749; bh=eN6LKUpi0ASwXWqvd/4tbITR/6+eY81F+iXoKQ8iA2Y=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=RZqlIbsDXfFdjiqllT11qPlY2GstbapQ6eq00R/BGvv4rUhO1BrRv9HcomTU4UbXg 95qyBRVz8hjH4W02BFG3IK4HzJykGWW3pZPJvtv5mAtQHdRF0+RAZLHrwcfEHWTmUg dtqsT9uyL/QSZpKky8J++prigW/EtjUA0+OsEIww=
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:25:49 -0800
From: Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5FHO2WCM5ACNTQ2QN373Z43EVBNHHB72WFIM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3294/564844048@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3294@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3294@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make transport parameter ID and length varint (#3294)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5df1c14d6864_20f03fce448cd960195774"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
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/BkfXJiSg79ZK14YFGAMv9Wm8T3w>
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: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:25:51 -0000

In addition to the points that @nibanks mentioned, there's another advantage of defining our own format for transport parameters: 

- We can require the list to be ordered by parameter ID (I've suggested this before somewhere, but #3169 doesn't yet incorporate this suggestion).

This would make the detection of duplicate parameters (which is now just a SHOULD due to the computational complexity) trivial, and would allow us to turn the SHOULD into a MUST. Furthermore, it reduces the profiling surface exposed by a QUIC implementation: I would assume that today it's probably possible to identify a QUIC implementation just by looking at the order of the transport parameters it sends.

@kazuho

> I see that some people are arguing that the encoding can be different based on the view that TP belongs to QUIC. I dispute that. We deliberately decided to mix crypto handshake and transport negotiation in QUIC. TP is a cross-layer thing that is exchanged during the TLS handshake.

I disagree with this statement. The reason we're putting transport parameters into the TLS handshake is because they're sent in Initial and that's basically the only way we can detect a modification by an on-path attacker. By putting them into the TLS handshake they become part of the transcript and therefore prevents this attack.
If there was a way to send transport parameters in encrypted packets, there would be no reason not to define a QUIC SETTINGS frame for them.

-- 
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/3294#issuecomment-564844048