Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] describe how 0-RTT is accepted and rejected (#2841)

Kazuho Oku <> Tue, 25 June 2019 10:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCAC12010E for <>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 03:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.998 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 L3DJ4gMDSg6l for <>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 03:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16E711200DE for <>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 03:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 03:57:58 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1561460278; bh=3OcWY0FaGWtJvDSx8r3y2JzJ/diQDRY3NjXrhuzNKVM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=JkuYZSabwXlwcMT5W445A/nscG87JlniVjn0jpl9X9zflrLf9waPxflgp5G1UtDOq Nb3DvivWafXnEEqsn2FR1S0TdC8Pa1bmucuKlFuk/lcekxG70FARsaG3SwXyIcqP0m pWCWl5uROgQi5J43O5j981dffOWTEg8lVsKH49/4=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2841/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] describe how 0-RTT is accepted and rejected (#2841)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d11fe36b4519_468e3f917cccd95c64738"; 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
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: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:58:02 -0000

kazuho commented on this pull request.

-A server rejects 0-RTT by rejecting 0-RTT at the TLS layer.  This also prevents
-QUIC from sending 0-RTT data. A server will always reject 0-RTT if it sends a
-TLS HelloRetryRequest.
+A server rejects 0-RTT by sending a ServerHello without the EarlyDataIndication.
+A server will always reject 0-RTT if it sends a TLS HelloRetryRequest.  When
+rejecting 0-RTT, a server MUST NOT process any 0-RTT packets, even if it is in
+possesion of the keys to do so.  When 0-RTT was rejected, a client MUST treat
+receipt of an acknowledgement for a 0-RTT packet as a connection error of type

To clarify, what is being discussed here is about how to process ACKs containing invalid packet numbers. The general rule we have is that _an endpoint SHOULD treat receipt of an acknowledgment for a packet it did not send as a connection error of type PROTOCOL_VIOLATION, if it is able to detect the condition_ ([section 13.1.1](

Is there a reason we need something different for 0-RTT packets?

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