Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify the side-effect of frequent key updates (#2788)

MikkelFJ <> Thu, 13 June 2019 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE77F120092 for <>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.391
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 WGOaj1Vxvuvm for <>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E300120108 for <>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:40:08 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1560436808; bh=lnLNb+eCmjz60q3kgTUnfne0EqOVSAfF5AgR9qmI55c=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Csoc+eSls0DfFKk7K9H6S7G9HzSB5/we2qYQhuXgxtgSBDN1ceNnXzTyAeG5g3eqy PvtyT127+xFb44uK0bpqKbNcKzleKH4JoztiuWTqdSYYYLGseib1VKuEOrZsqMwztm 0394vGyEz5wcfVq+SF230DgrUFQHKurt26efwZFo=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2788/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify the side-effect of frequent key updates (#2788)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d0260482a59c_3c383faf0e2cd95c12727a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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, 13 Jun 2019 14:40:12 -0000

> Therefore, it is my view that seeing performance degradation when updating keys too frequently (due to packets being deemed lost) is a non-issue.


> OTOH, this means that we need to discuss if and how we need to prevent excessive key updates being used as a DoS vector...

This is why language is interesting for short key update intervals. A dumb buggy implementation that looks like a DoS attack shouldn't say - it's according to spec.

But it isn't worth too much thought since the issue is limited, overall.

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