Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify the side-effect of frequent key updates (#2788)

Kazuho Oku <> Thu, 13 June 2019 09:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD8612015D for <>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 02:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.391
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 KlFpSqP2nZhb for <>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 02:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64E0C1200D8 for <>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 02:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 02:19:43 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1560417583; bh=XuINw5l9+1euG7FDILplffALVbJMYyJ2ZbZ5/8tOpgY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=eemA7pe+ZnQ5DvUQbf8vPhBp2UrgUJthErcprCT4kwZCkZPdhNECxh5iwdyWX5ry7 5xSau6ZgvS/ihSXoXyZFe8BepnY/ow1JBtKUw30IT97ZUC1E0g1xGNln5hK1eePKqw XIV4Lwo5GlqMM6dViTHwsYsDDU1FPxqU4tvRiQOM=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2788/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify the side-effect of frequent key updates (#2788)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d02152f5e6fc_117f3f9d99ecd96816567a9"; 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
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: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:19:46 -0000

Thank you for the discussion.

While we agree that excessive use is key update is something unnecessary, I think you are correct in point out that an endpoint is expected to process an incoming packet protected by a newer generation of key, presumably be comparing the PN of the incoming packet and the highest PN and epoch of the packet received previously.

That’d make this PR worthless with the exception of the removal of the MAY requirement on the number of the send keys.

Thank you for the discussion.

OTOH, this means that we need to discuss if and how we need to prevent excessive key updates being used as a DoS vector...

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