IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make ALPN mandatory in QUIC-via-TLS (#2263)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 02 January 2019 23:39 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 2554312D4F1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 15:39:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.065
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, 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_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 fJkEhuOgpgrv for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 15:39:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D21E124BE5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 15:39:53 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 15:39:52 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1546472392; bh=BXJ5aiwQm4bKSAjXVlvVfMHuxfwiRBtJD0GSUX16cdU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=MBdDtzc8fuzxGtnfH9RW9MiA1uPaSneeDvuSCJhroUiXG5xhrLu/V2MLMueNpqihJ HFCHcBI4t2RwjQgH6SgNoDxNmKUXoSXwU1YqTmyjFMQt7OCB847Bs+IEm6ZjgyD0Mi J9f5sMY+Bf/xT2a7WEJIq0AcBD5/F52X9+AMVhGE=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab82f7fea92869823ea24008376c07cbedb840d31292cf0000000118450dc892a169ce1781f912@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2263/451019198@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2263@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2263@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make ALPN mandatory in QUIC-via-TLS (#2263)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c2d4bc830ceb_2ad83fee8a4d45b45997c8"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/C3Cqt786Ldt_tNNr1dRMbI9OF_c>
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, 02 Jan 2019 23:39:55 -0000

The transport doc currently says:

> The cryptographic handshake MUST provide the following properties:
>
> * authenticated negotiation of an application protocol (TLS uses ALPN {{?RFC7301}} for this purpose)

So I think that is fine.  I've opened #2284 to make the ALPN requirement clearer.

As @kazuho says, if you have other means of agreeing on protocol, then you can avoid ALPN.  For instance, a QUIC version that could only be used with one application protocol would be one way.  In the end, you have to be sure that both client and server agree on what protocol they are talking.  I can see how binding to name resolution would work; though I can also see how it might not work (multiple subjectAltNames, failing to communicate SNI properly, coalescing, etc...).

-- 
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/2263#issuecomment-451019198

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status