Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Describe interaction between QUIC and TLS regarding saved 0-RTT state (#2947)

Nick Harper <> Thu, 01 August 2019 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE43120089 for <>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XjMRG6R1JXxV for <>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE64812001A for <>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 16:40:34 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1564702834; bh=XBigodoZNItY6Z1bqOkVuasRblXs5E1NDtU450jypn4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=feXHYazjWmSzbfji8k/LrQ1DKda6eXLXOD1R5WB06B85iXNUV3MwH6kiNxmw5Ax2O h6Rh+bz/4wdj4HFa2EBjIlpOz5sHNt+l4RZZeqK5vv4CdwMrwPX76YR54P56AvndTX B/0vsciZaQeXk3xTK/G1f5+1j8uUdcWn126gVtpE=
From: Nick Harper <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2947/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Describe interaction between QUIC and TLS regarding saved 0-RTT state (#2947)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d437872e0a1f_68f13fec42ccd9684260b6"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nharper
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, 01 Aug 2019 23:40:38 -0000

nharper commented on this pull request.

> @@ -629,6 +632,24 @@ A client MAY attempt to send 0-RTT again if it receives a Retry or Version
 Negotiation packet.  These packets do not signify rejection of 0-RTT.
+## Validating saved 0-RTT state
+When a server receives a ClientHello with the "early_data" extension, it has to
+decide whether to accept or rejct early data from the client. Some of this
+decision is made by the TLS stack (e.g. checking that the cipher suite being
+resumed was included in the ClientHello, see Section 4.2.10 of {{!TLS13}}). QUIC
+saves additional transport and application state in a 0-RTT session ticket, and
+imposes additional restrictions on when a server may accept early data. The TLS
+stack needs to check with the QUIC stack whether this saved state is valid for
+accepting early data.
+One example of such state that the QUIC stack checks when deciding whether or
+not to accept early data is the transport parameters extension. When HTTP/3
+({{QUIC-HTTP}}) is used at the application layer, the SETTINGS frame from the

>From doing git grep, the only reference to a QUIC-* draft that is marked with a `?` is the transport draft referencing QUIC-MANAGEABILITY. The rest omit a `?` or a `!`.

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