[quicwg/base-drafts] Should the key update expansion use "quic " or "tls13 "? (#1845)

Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com> Tue, 09 October 2018 01:45 UTC

Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 18:44:45 -0700
From: Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba40bb3c525df3f05b02c0b2c939fb85ad451ab5b92cf0000000117d3ca0d92a169ce15ef61fe@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1845@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should the key update expansion use "quic " or "tls13 "? (#1845)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bbc080dbc81d_7a413fc8a80d45c04722be"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/kVmsNaL63uTQKfY_JgBfLb0lriY>

I am looking at the details of the key update mechanism. The TLS draft says that "_A receiving endpoint detects an update when the KEY_PHASE bit doesn’t match what it is expecting. It creates a new secret (see Section 7.2 of [TLS13]) and the corresponding read key and IV._" That means using HKDF-Expand-Label.

I assume that we are going to use the prefix “quic “ rather than “tls13 “, since that's what we do at all the other places that use HKDF-Expand-Label. But the spec is silent. Maybe it should have a mention about theprefix for the label expansion?

-- 
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/issues/1845

[quicwg/base-drafts] Should the key update expans… Christian Huitema
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should the key update ex… Martin Thomson
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should the key update ex… Martin Thomson