Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Specify behavior for post-handshake CRYPTO messages (#2524)

Nick Harper <notifications@github.com> Mon, 18 March 2019 20:27 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 AF49B1312A6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 13:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 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_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 dgC43FPV20TB for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 13:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-12.smtp.github.com (out-12.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 395651311CD for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 13:27:28 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1552940848; bh=WRY31oliQVBTfQuBHMAxgnMfQ3SpHm5XmRijRvYanyY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=TJLPYZsL/uwnjO+cwaNCauk8Y8uGKkhdoRFQIMOrBbobTHQYITSxNM2tNTTp4ZWeI FtaXZMZ7p8OV4pqfNsD00HXl0HB1i26ugrSEday3VV+83j5ufde3upDW08TqIfFHHo vDrxGosfDskaeg03FMHRTDHGIFS60PNeZSo0MOGQ=
From: Nick Harper <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab678945e51d66a0659968563062a1457c80f3bf3592cf0000000118a7c13092a169ce192348df@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2524/review/215807113@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2524@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2524@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Specify behavior for post-handshake CRYPTO messages (#2524)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c8fff3067bcd_3bd3fbd422d45bc100581"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/RtyHZZeFx-5ysYDebJ5PHCZ45bc>
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, 18 Mar 2019 20:27:41 -0000

nharper commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1232,6 +1232,19 @@ handshake data start from zero in each packet number space.
 Endpoints MUST explicitly negotiate an application protocol.  This avoids
 situations where there is a disagreement about the protocol that is in use.
 
+Implementations need to maintain a buffer of CRYPTO data received out of order.
+Because there is no flow control of CRYPTO frames, and endpoint could
+potentially force its peer to buffer an unbounded amount of data.
+Implementations MUST support buffering at least 4096 bytes of data.
+
+Once the handshake completes, if an endpoint is unable to buffer all data in a
+CRYPTO frame, it MAY discard all subsequent CRYPTO frames, or it MAY close the
+connection with an INTERNAL_ERROR code. In the case where an endpoint chooses to

The CRYPTO_ERRORs are TLS alerts (which are one byte) converted into QUIC error codes, so we can't pick one of those. I've created a new one CRYPTO_BUFFER_EXCEEDED.

> @@ -1232,6 +1232,19 @@ handshake data start from zero in each packet number space.
 Endpoints MUST explicitly negotiate an application protocol.  This avoids
 situations where there is a disagreement about the protocol that is in use.
 
+Implementations need to maintain a buffer of CRYPTO data received out of order.

I moved this to the end of section 7 in a new subsection.

> @@ -1232,6 +1232,19 @@ handshake data start from zero in each packet number space.
 Endpoints MUST explicitly negotiate an application protocol.  This avoids
 situations where there is a disagreement about the protocol that is in use.
 
+Implementations need to maintain a buffer of CRYPTO data received out of order.
+Because there is no flow control of CRYPTO frames, and endpoint could
+potentially force its peer to buffer an unbounded amount of data.
+Implementations MUST support buffering at least 4096 bytes of data.
+
+Once the handshake completes, if an endpoint is unable to buffer all data in a
+CRYPTO frame, it MAY discard all subsequent CRYPTO frames, or it MAY close the
+connection with an INTERNAL_ERROR code. In the case where an endpoint chooses to

Done.

> @@ -1232,6 +1232,19 @@ handshake data start from zero in each packet number space.
 Endpoints MUST explicitly negotiate an application protocol.  This avoids
 situations where there is a disagreement about the protocol that is in use.
 
+Implementations need to maintain a buffer of CRYPTO data received out of order.
+Because there is no flow control of CRYPTO frames, and endpoint could
+potentially force its peer to buffer an unbounded amount of data.
+Implementations MUST support buffering at least 4096 bytes of data.
+
+Once the handshake completes, if an endpoint is unable to buffer all data in a
+CRYPTO frame, it MAY discard all subsequent CRYPTO frames, or it MAY close the
+connection with an INTERNAL_ERROR code. In the case where an endpoint chooses to
+discard all subsequent CRYPTO frames, the packets containing these CRYPTO frames
+are still ACKed. An endpoint in this condition MAY tear down state for its

Done.

> @@ -1232,6 +1232,19 @@ handshake data start from zero in each packet number space.
 Endpoints MUST explicitly negotiate an application protocol.  This avoids
 situations where there is a disagreement about the protocol that is in use.
 
+Implementations need to maintain a buffer of CRYPTO data received out of order.
+Because there is no flow control of CRYPTO frames, and endpoint could
+potentially force its peer to buffer an unbounded amount of data.
+Implementations MUST support buffering at least 4096 bytes of data.
+
+Once the handshake completes, if an endpoint is unable to buffer all data in a
+CRYPTO frame, it MAY discard all subsequent CRYPTO frames, or it MAY close the
+connection with an INTERNAL_ERROR code. In the case where an endpoint chooses to
+discard all subsequent CRYPTO frames, the packets containing these CRYPTO frames
+are still ACKed. An endpoint in this condition MAY tear down state for its
+cryptographic handshake, keeping only the material needed for the current
+encryption keys and any future key updates.

Dropped.

> @@ -1232,6 +1232,19 @@ handshake data start from zero in each packet number space.
 Endpoints MUST explicitly negotiate an application protocol.  This avoids
 situations where there is a disagreement about the protocol that is in use.
 
+Implementations need to maintain a buffer of CRYPTO data received out of order.
+Because there is no flow control of CRYPTO frames, and endpoint could
+potentially force its peer to buffer an unbounded amount of data.
+Implementations MUST support buffering at least 4096 bytes of data.

Yes, it applies during the handshake.

I've updated the text to discuss buffer sizing and separate out pre- vs post-handshake completion behavior.

-- 
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/2524#discussion_r266606030