Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 0-RTT can't use transport parameters or 1-RTT frames (#2461)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Thu, 14 February 2019 21:29 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 D35361310B1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:29:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.597 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_28=1.404, 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 oe1mk_AGHRb1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:29:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0099813118D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:29:04 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1550179744; bh=2wxuzsi8VXWXyRfvzX8iz4gfelSUaL/Gn2u1W8/Q5NM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=LryqdhoDgVMZQAlrTYnKWiIM+h8UzB5KHBI9vmtCdpi0BvcKnXEROOOvatUAPQcG8 RbuSSI2hGWo/XTNM/si2xyu+AsrLUXTQHJH9Q6pAA1i2F5N85wB9UJALgjqrd2pu18 mg+s7SXdMRINKSy/YP+rqawEgOeKRcXxiitccmL8=
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab15965e4894632f42a3ab50b47f064c5d9f5d4fa092cf00000001187d9fa092a169ce1869fe88@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2461/c463804848@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2461@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2461@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 0-RTT can't use transport parameters or 1-RTT frames (#2461)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c65dda0acf7c_16013fd7840d45bc8175a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/MqT7TKGObCSbBmTnetUFyqqOpD8>
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: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 21:29:08 -0000

Ah, I was looking in -transport.  That prohibits the client from going back to 0-RTT, and prohibits the server from accepting 0-RTT starting 3RTO after the server first sends a 1-RTT packet, but doesn't appear to require the server to check that the client didn't reverse itself by dropping packets.

(This *is* the issue/PR about not allowing the client to stay in 1-RTT, isn't it?)

-- 
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/2461#issuecomment-463804848