[quicwg/base-drafts] Does it make sense to try 0-RTT after Retry? (#2842)

Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com> Mon, 24 June 2019 23:48 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BAEB1201A8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, 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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ljr-PotTDB7E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01BF712007C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:48:28 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1561420108; bh=fcFTKSW+dfmjaRKtm7AxpHIBPv+Gbf7xNg/8XpRnx7c=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Z2NVkcnzOGjA2MrN0E5K4sphNZIEQcCdpb4eYT0NJkTxBF1VUtIm4nI2He5WuxoQ/ WP/0yckaa2fXeAwlhvOyYRewyk15kXDyC3K7DJzZdhVSHp5o6uQsFD3nu3a64iOK5U ztiPiTsMX/5pAbjbkITXLUC1WnQn/y9FWSykcYZY=
From: Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6OHX4PLE3LSDCZ2MV3D2J4ZEVBNHHBW3J46A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2842@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does it make sense to try 0-RTT after Retry? (#2842)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d11614cdd6cd_797d3f9a8f4cd95c23225a"; 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/FDMITQa48UEc39YEu4z_49dRFzA>
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: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 23:48:32 -0000

In https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2831#pullrequestreview-253535028, @MikeBishop points out that after a Retry, all 0-RTT packets sent in the first flight are still valid, although they will probably have been dropped by the server (unless there's significant reordering). That means that a client SHOULD retransmit all 0-RTT packets in the second flight.

We now have two different scenarios:

1. In the case of a HelloRetryRequest, the client is prohibited from sending 0-RTT, and has to cancel retransmissions for all outstanding 0-RTT packets.
2. In the case of Retry, the 0-RTT packets from the first flight are declared lost (without any effect on the cwnd though) and retransmitted.

Considering that Retry adds a roundtrip anyway (and thereby limits the usefulness of 0-RTT), and that we only expect it to be used by a server that's under attack (which makes it likely to refuse 0-RTT later in the handshake), does it really make sense to send 0-RTT in that case?

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