Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Server should not accept 1-RTT traffic before handshake completion (#3159)

Marten Seemann <> Wed, 30 October 2019 04:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94428120827 for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 21:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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 lP8Xo8w92b8G for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 21:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42F5112003E for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 21:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 026426E0453 for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 21:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572410485; bh=Mm96omDOSIhpH38kyhE4zMnG5ak40oS53jkw8SCvX7Y=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=HgZS+WDY4Xr8fkKFRvyh3HEkkJuP+hdGwT2L/loBH+LByOr6/1Kilm7FDVIyFzp9P S9PC4/aU7aYEo9Zyk+4UCplCpvfGYtsTGK37MQV0zXRbBQCfLuNMuEoz5h/GuTSjRh xQWBZTy44QJE8Q/iYMrpG46k29cmAVT31sFQ3c8M=
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 21:41:24 -0700
From: Marten Seemann <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3159/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Server should not accept 1-RTT traffic before handshake completion (#3159)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db91474e78be_3bcd3f853f8cd968133687"; 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
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: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 04:41:29 -0000

Would it be unreasonable to derive the client's 1-RTT send key from the resumption master secret then?
I guess one downside of this approach is that we'd be using different key derivation paths for server and client, since the server needs to be able to send 0.5-RTT data.

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