Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Add retry integrity tag (#3120)

David Schinazi <> Fri, 15 November 2019 10:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26B31201CE for <>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 02:08:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_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 OjcI-OGtLnTa for <>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 02:08:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 714DB120164 for <>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 02:08:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58EBC520E45 for <>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 02:08:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1573812492; bh=zbzaMu6cuPz8AeH7lHcfoFcn2+FVN58ZnMxEgkGy/Oc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Vmk96v12QIipckvNmtLE4nKQ1EawsM/wTVjPfJQ/fZeuPnIFWwnHcW5F3yiFUU+mg WS/3G/6RT6FQUEx6sfLra7o5xfWhtGuQXjGXhYf2WuXjiafGWMYHbPkgDnq7F8JNuh G/rS3Pt1U5fMXlmH+V4mEanXsADxtvkPMYQEETQ4=
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 02:08:12 -0800
From: David Schinazi <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3120/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Add retry integrity tag (#3120)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dce790c4a39a_5ec73fee054cd96014829b3"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
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: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 10:08:15 -0000

1. encrypting the token has been discussed in this PR and does not have consensus
2. the zero key can be per-version (by which I mean that QUICv1 uses a zero key, and QUICv2 can decide to use a different key)

The discussion on this PR and related issue #3014 indicates that there is interest in the Retry Integrity Tag. On top of that, the PR as-is is currently covered by the chairs' latest consensus call. Therefore I'd suggest you please file a separate issue to discuss encrypting the token, and we can discuss that once this PR has landed. You can also file a second issue to discuss zero key vs non-zero.

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