Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Encrypting Retry token (#3274)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Tue, 10 December 2019 00:32 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 CF486120288 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 16:32:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 txDyK3CP56WS for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 16:31:59 -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 7394912021C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 16:31:59 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 16:31:58 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1575937918; bh=Jmvqw0dBUN/142StCG7UU2V1jGNlhZh4oXMdhXFtswo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=GMjpblI51V4FMsvzF9WBHHku7W7v62MX5WAtRMDvqwa3jU/bFcpYWGc6ScH33+vVd jTRTMZgMt7MAPtsJwyOrb+uzLrcVQGvp5F/yinpWKORj4GwQKdH1Frt8ScwisSfvhM ik/8DKILMv0xThP05pmpPjyoyeYqYYuun0E1Dhcc=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6B4A5NUHEDRU25CIF37QM75EVBNHHB7CUNWA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3274/563504054@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3274@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3274@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Encrypting Retry token (#3274)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5deee77e102e9_747d3fc69e0cd95c10628c"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/F3EEYFG5XutXDCaa6AOUSU8NVQ0>
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 00:32:01 -0000

My +1 goes to just doing GMAC, due to the reasons others have laid out.

I'd also note that it is unlikely that middleboxes will ossify on the fact that the values of the token fields in Retry and Initial packets are equivalent, based on the behavior those developers see on the wire. This is because Retry is expected to be used *only* when there is an attack. Or, if those developers read the spec, the token will get ossified regardless of if it's encrypted in the Retry packet.

-- 
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/3274#issuecomment-563504054