Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Specify behavior for post-handshake CRYPTO messages (#2524)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Fri, 05 April 2019 00:21 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 7F2E012015B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 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_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 MszX0crruyEs for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 067AB120149 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 17:21:49 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1554423709; bh=re7/h0ycgcMit0zxM9cgSvV1H+/KplRBpo4cdik/zaY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=0BmJ1jCirg1IHpMKRxwpfINr1H7W3O2W+U8Q3NIodRWBM4gSn4Hq4HOqs2FN/xoT0 4VvyGxrZUl9EMz3LAhtpAFjDDMwdU/fB8Z5ldR1txDKrrLKlu7BDPGzNsp+8cHi/cf NWPwh39hjUVHKut2a5dMmIRILbCbu7ZGFLiitlOs=
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab227bb9b5095e78b840f7f90f24dfab53372cf64192cf0000000118be619d92a169ce192348df@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2524/review/223058169@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2524@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2524@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Specify behavior for post-handshake CRYPTO messages (#2524)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ca69f9d9589f_241b3fd0092d45c41211ae"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/Egrls5FsnP1i74C59tj-rbAUJHY>
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: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:21:54 -0000

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

A few comments

> @@ -1438,6 +1438,31 @@ New transport parameters can be registered according to the rules in
 {{iana-transport-parameters}}.
 
 
+## Cryptographic Message Buffering
+
+Implementations need to maintain a buffer of CRYPTO data received out of order.
+Because there is no flow control of CRYPTO frames, an endpoint could
+potentially force its peer to buffer an unbounded amount of data.
+
+Implementations MUST support buffering at least 4096 bytes of data received in
+CRYPTO frames out of order. Endpoints MAY choose to allow more data to be
+buffered during the handshake. A larger limit during the handshake could allow
+for larger keys or credentials to be exchanged. An endpoint's buffer size does
+not need to remain constant during the life of the connection.
+
+Being unable to buffer CRYPTO frames during the handshake leads to a connection

```suggestion
Being unable to buffer CRYPTO frames during the handshake can lead to a connection
```

> +potentially force its peer to buffer an unbounded amount of data.
+
+Implementations MUST support buffering at least 4096 bytes of data received in
+CRYPTO frames out of order. Endpoints MAY choose to allow more data to be
+buffered during the handshake. A larger limit during the handshake could allow
+for larger keys or credentials to be exchanged. An endpoint's buffer size does
+not need to remain constant during the life of the connection.
+
+Being unable to buffer CRYPTO frames during the handshake leads to a connection
+failure. If an endpoint's buffer is exceeded during the handshake, it can expand
+its buffer temporarily to complete the handshake. If an endpoint cannot expand
+its buffer, it MUST close the connection with a CRYPTO_BUFFER_EXCEEDED error
+code.
+
+Once the handshake completes, if an endpoint is unable to buffer all data in a
+CRYPTO frame, it MAY discard all subsequent CRYPTO frames, or it MAY close the

This isn't clear to me. If the endpoint is unable to buffer data in a CRYPTO frame, why does it need to drop _subsequent_ CRYPTO frames?

> +CRYPTO frames out of order. Endpoints MAY choose to allow more data to be
+buffered during the handshake. A larger limit during the handshake could allow
+for larger keys or credentials to be exchanged. An endpoint's buffer size does
+not need to remain constant during the life of the connection.
+
+Being unable to buffer CRYPTO frames during the handshake leads to a connection
+failure. If an endpoint's buffer is exceeded during the handshake, it can expand
+its buffer temporarily to complete the handshake. If an endpoint cannot expand
+its buffer, it MUST close the connection with a CRYPTO_BUFFER_EXCEEDED error
+code.
+
+Once the handshake completes, if an endpoint is unable to buffer all data in a
+CRYPTO frame, it MAY discard all subsequent CRYPTO frames, or it MAY close the
+connection with an CRYPTO_BUFFER_EXCEEDED error code. If an endpoint chooses to
+discard all subsequent CRYPTO frames, the packets containing these CRYPTO frames
+MUST be acknowledged.

The endpoint MUST ack frames that are dropped? I don't think I follow this.

-- 
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/pull/2524#pullrequestreview-223058169