Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rework Key Update (#2237)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 13 February 2019 05:41 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 5268B130FFA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:41:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 XEcM7A130Lk8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C283130FEE for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:41:39 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1550036499; bh=5ZoyGyR1709A7LNQeT+qGva0U7pIrNojYnjZkeXTDCI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Wsmi31sDPg53/waSJsxznJY9Xb526wi3+PeyHOBVsOBhgrUsED8yc1xGO67qis+Dd TkEVxSnSG9nFnFMu1ldlSOGeDaB7KN9tRhdx/oNQWmOpUE0BURTak5NqwyfU9Do3af 7scvZ8nZ82WV9pYXzPc9nGRYryZrquOeT9jEQXIw=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abbaeeff94b7269f93e1f57a6db59194e7ad43c97092cf00000001187b701392a169ce1770e975@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2237/review/203037239@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2237@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2237@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rework Key Update (#2237)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c63ae131561a_56b23fd418ed45b43300bd"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/WU6t30SOgiZmLRVgHcDhOoWIbBc>
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 05:41:42 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.



> @@ -5012,6 +5020,44 @@ Reason Phrase:
   This SHOULD be a UTF-8 encoded string {{!RFC3629}}.
 
 
+## KEYS_READY Frame {#frame-keys-ready}
+
+An endpoint sends a KEYS_READY frame (type=0x1e) to signal that it has installed
+keys for reading and writing packets.  Receipt of this frame in a packet
+indicates that all earlier keys can be safely discarded.

I don't want to delay discarding Initial keys, because we're would lose the DoS fix. Handshake keys are probably ok, but it is easier to draw the line between handshake and key update.

I don't expect that loss and reordering will be that significant, nor will the loss of positive signals. Any missing packets should be small (just an ACK probably), so the reduced increase to congestion allowance would be negligible.

We could add text to Section 6.2.2 of the recovery draft to this effect.

-- 
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/2237#discussion_r256254315