Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Server should not accept 1-RTT traffic before handshake completion (#3159)

Antoine Delignat-Lavaud <> Wed, 30 October 2019 04:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8403A120052 for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 21:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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 LH8VeCYzR4jj for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 21:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24CC0120089 for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 21:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 21:04:20 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572408260; bh=uDvf4RNlSGtxlGzOD+MBa3EvgpIcbxkiu+/TWYCd0eI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ew+0xkPIs7p7UJHO18gvcpeHi+5dYztvtIgjPFRww1TVWCabkuoxUrSvltxDtZm6p P7RU9L9dEMxnmSTwGPT/CXExmqW7YapqrzTOZmJkxitAGQuhjy2BlJ7yB7yj0pHbBt HjtXRZw+/4M5PeW3JU9hsJHubpP6P0TwJSBBPV/g=
From: Antoine Delignat-Lavaud <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3159/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Server should not accept 1-RTT traffic before handshake completion (#3159)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db90bc42efb7_117e3fe0b24cd95c240355"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ad-l
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: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 04:04:23 -0000

> The ability to coalesce sent packets is optional and the spec goes to great pains to not require sending them at any point, which has caused much suffering for @ianswett. Moreover, I am not at all convinced that coalescing Finished solves the problem.

I agree, coalescing Finished is just a way to avoid server being blocked. The proper fix to the problem is to ensure that the client traffic secret for 1-RTT is derived from a transcript that includes client finished, as Subodh suggests. Unfortunately, only the TLS resumption master secret includes it. 

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