Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Output of the discard keys design team (#2673)

David Schinazi <notifications@github.com> Sat, 11 May 2019 19:29 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 B3F80120074 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 12:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.606
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.606 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_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 7GR7YBlfuYf5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 12:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D83DE120026 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2019 12:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 12:29:03 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1557602943; bh=om7p+WABo+p7tk+SZ4v8lTnOPrjJJrtDQnMYYg5waDE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=b+g9RwhOZYQ/fwR3ngJcricXkK4H+/Quo7+fol2iJq1hSe74BtB1ETAZl3ojrHw0q VHBuiO0BnPEnkyKV63OQuHxGaXg9uDsrlBb/XlKr58yGaxaPZmf1O16xfO4mSx+B8j imUq71cmPJv25XGofCnlB+LeRsbTNzFQOUzbBCRY=
From: David Schinazi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2SRUKJ4ENYZ5TSEYN24RKP7EVBNHHBUUAEMU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2673/review/236389845@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2673@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2673@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Output of the discard keys design team (#2673)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cd7227fa7c99_2943fe2ae0cd96c1377d8"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
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/krwk1yf6u_v9YgwLROXVv6x_PCk>
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: Sat, 11 May 2019 19:29:07 -0000

DavidSchinazi commented on this pull request.



> +Verifying the peer's Finished provides endpoints with an assurance that
+previous handshake messages have not been modified.  Note that the handshake
+does not complete on both endpoints simultaneously, therefore any requirements
+placed on endpoints based on the completion of the handshake are specific to
+the handshake being complete from the perspective of the endpoint in question.
+
+
+### Handshake Confirmed {#handshake-confirmed}
+
+In this document, the TLS handshake is considered confirmed when both of the
+following two conditions are met: the handshake is complete and the endpoint
+has received an acknowledgment for a packet sent with 1-RTT keys.  This second
+condition can be implemented by tracking the lowest packet number sent with
+1-RTT keys, and the highest value of the Largest Acknowledged field in any
+received 1-RTT ACK frame: once the latter is higher than or equal to the
+former, the handshake is confirmed.

I think I prefer the current wording. I'm afraid the suggestion could be confusing a reader that starts searching for the definition of a "recorded packet number".

-- 
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/2673#discussion_r283108854