Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Desirable behavior when it takes time to derive the traffic keys for the next PN space (#3821)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 14 July 2020 16:24 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 666643A09E1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 zvRVA47bEpJr for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1088C3A09F1 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-fb56993.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-fb56993.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.19.31]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3510066018A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594743838; bh=WEHeOlYvg/uXjswqfDxeA4hyJhQtO56btGAlHUHcoXQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Q9+bNqmu+GIyFGwGpQUjK2SjAWcB9lxFiK+P7RRw6/VW9P6Q3pQgqwIMXvDo57S18 SVsjVzSw1jvLDqXcXCr4OJpOxkVxFHKCmFyxnF6hnoqnfqHB+3jZaNtkh74scI9+v+ plV2zKlh8U604xF02V7N3WQHIgEaByVQ7zeSm+V8=
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:23:58 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZGQORQUMTG255NH3F5DG6R5EVBNHHCNTMDWA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3821/658277641@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3821@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3821@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Desirable behavior when it takes time to derive the traffic keys for the next PN space (#3821)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f0ddc1e24b8d_48973fccda4cd95c250965"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/c4YUDop39MEO6N4bMrVJN4o5kRQ>
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: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 16:24:05 -0000

Thanks for filing this.  I think I mostly understand the issue, and I think this is mostly a correctness issue with Chrome.  That being said, we may want to add some caution that this is a potential issue and to avoid handshake operations(ie: cert verification on the client and remote handshaking on the server) from excessively delaying acknowledgements.

I've seen lots of cases when the cert is spread over 3 packets and Chrome ACKs the first two packets before the cert is verified, so this doesn't seem to be a case of key availability.  Google servers don't have cert compression enabled yet, so many certs don't fit into 1 or 2 packets.

The recovery draft already says that peers don't arm for ApplicationData(including 0.5RTT) before the handshake is confirmed.  Knowing the peer has the information to derive the keys isn't really enough, since you'd also have to know the peer has received a packet of the next encryption level.  As a result, I can't think of any changes to this part of the PTO logic I'd want to make.

-- 
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/issues/3821#issuecomment-658277641