Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remove handshake confirmed test for KeyUpdate (#3212)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Thu, 28 November 2019 01:23 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 941C3120B24 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 17:23:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 AWoC2obxtELM for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 17:23:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0DE6120B20 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 17:23:07 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 17:23:06 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1574904186; bh=3rqV0tRIz6TUKJEa9duAR8H3yJDmlDoKrM2JXvhLUhU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=kKpxPBJDya6eRdnVhwUNMEFdzY5oUU2950YKmcLRgNVbltEL9k/Zn300MNPDXJZVp M1HQRiUVqkVQIa3UfEaDouneSaJcc4sVYi8Nxrm921ITTZNDwqNzAncCfLOGmrv1AE gR0dn4doKOFSKCJbXxCb2VMuSCBbaILi0TvCq4MQ=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3O5M4VZD2VBQ4ANXF35RJ7VEVBNHHB6CGIZA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3212/559304265@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3212@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3212@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remove handshake confirmed test for KeyUpdate (#3212)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ddf217aca09d_114a3fbe680cd968690128"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/lUEoQjdtiKnMy7lgChjVRlSMj-A>
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 01:23:09 -0000

@ekr, I took another look at this and reviewed [the minutes](https://github.com/quicwg/wg-materials/blob/master/ietf106/minutes.md#3212-remove-requirement-for-handshake-to-complete-before-keyupdate).  I think that the outcome is no change.

> An endpoint MUST NOT initiate a key update prior to having confirmed
the handshake (Section 4.1.2). An endpoint MUST NOT initiate a
subsequent key update prior unless it has received an acknowledgment
for a packet that was sent protected with keys from the current key
phase.

The first sentence talks about the first key update.  While we all agree that this is a stricter restriction than absolutely necessary, the definition we agreed for "confirmed" (with `HANDSHAKE_DONE`) is now distinct enough to warrant the special text in that case.  As long as we are OK with that outcome, I don't think that this needs to change (@kazuho certainly argued for some way to hold the first key update back, which I think was derived from not wanting too many keys active at the same time).

If we wanted to allow more aggressive updates, then I would propose the most aggressive option:

> An endpoint MAY initiate the first key update immediately after 1-RTT keys are available.  For the first key update, as a receiver has no difficulty distinguishing between the first two sets of 1-RTT packet protection keys, endpoints can trigger a key update with the first 1-RTT packets they send.

The second sentence uses the word "subsequent" and so applies to all other key updates.  That doesn't need to change.

-- 
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/3212#issuecomment-559304265