Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rewrite key update section (#3050)

Martin Thomson <> Thu, 31 October 2019 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC37912008B for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_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 5o9uqRxS7jsW for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92B6E12081B for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:59:58 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572562798; bh=1Y3jlUKnFWfXHXt54JFn5+5tJVWFbZcklzFhoskjZzQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=E+Skl1Prxnis3kotj1DnAo0MwLSEyjVCxgSr3cLnYWJtFSgka5XUWEyp+6CangEN6 7TvCYt8zQnKvDDbInrCcPQN01Wp++mI0kFo09BMgasfg3UTksieuTqhgdOxwaab+mk myUz3euJc24sGArH1D6fXZi9m/r0O/fWdch+Uwy4=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3050/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rewrite key update section (#3050)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dbb676e72e09_bf03fe52b8cd96c1172ac"; 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
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: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 23:00:02 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

> +An endpoint SHOULD retain old keys so that packets sent by its peer prior to
+receiving the key update can be processed.  Discarding old keys too early can
+cause delayed packets to be discarded.  Discarding packets will be interpreted
+as packet loss by the peer and could adversely affect performance.
+## Responding to a Key Update
+A peer is permitted to initiate a key update after receiving an acknowledgement
+of a packet in the current key phase.  If a packet is received with a key phase
+that differs from the value the endpoint used to protect the last packet it
+sent, the endpoint uses the next packet protection keys for reading and the
+corresponding key and IV; see {{receive-key-generation}} for considerations
+about generating these keys.
+An endpoint uses the same key derivation process as its peer uses to generate

I cut it.  It isn't necessary.

The point was to say that you need to generate the same keys for reading that your peer uses for writing.  But it was full of fail.

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