IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow most frames in 0-RTT (#2355)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 06 March 2019 05:39 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 F20D1130EDB for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 21:39:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 npDI1vn-nGWv for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 21:39:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F5A6130F01 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 21:39:17 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 21:39:15 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1551850755; bh=zudIjJC017YSrhtwEhvDB1jPrcAXg07SZ/gBC/knVUI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=zGeGZSXavt170QiI9UQY1du+uO0XTTNt6GwsfXtpXKMfrX+ebo55h0btmXkl7HS6N KFdmF80BtQdVZhbiMY/KwRxNNr+Zab3vmphOAwL6yQyjACuAZIt18wvchh6shdkpUG Stc+VsMhXXqcbAaM2TYEX3ozyWRUPGt5WjDs338I=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab3213f1b5ddc8d16cc6e6ef4a11b0b0faafa862e292cf0000000118971f0392a169ce17e9c1c4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2355/review/211051190@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2355@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2355@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow most frames in 0-RTT (#2355)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c7f5d03a86d1_4b353fbb812d45c0142852"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/h7_PsSG8axsJzGsdEE8nx3zPiUo>
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, 06 Mar 2019 05:39:24 -0000

kazuho commented on this pull request.



>  - PADDING frames MAY appear in packets of any encryption level.
 
+- CRYPTO and CONNECTION_CLOSE frames MAY appear in packets of any encryption

The fear I have in allowing the CONNECTION_CLOSE frame to be sent in 0-RTT packet is that it might cause confusion among the people reading the specification.

Currently, an endpoint is expected to send a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame using a packet that it knows that the peer can decrypt (see https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#rfc.section.10.3). I think we should retain that principle, and based on that principle, an endpoint would never be sending a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame in a 0-RTT packet.

-- 
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/2355#discussion_r262797750

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email