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

Kazuho Oku <> Mon, 11 November 2019 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E2FE120137 for <>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 17:23:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 p5NCdqcw4ilB for <>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 17:23:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86B4C12001A for <>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 17:23:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047DD960259 for <>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 17:23:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1573435412; bh=PtqLGbxivUr7FgaAwSEQS38u2YegnvPXBErPdHgQunA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=qPgdx279aBY+tJtW7cjbMIIS/RbW4xKfY+CvnKC3KR6JqMWjMAh2H2S0Ggv+Ph/26 YZTWz5aUqsGV0KB++9FPvn1TrMyBo9QLp7SG758PRn4EaayD67mx1futfie2IyMPWy phH/ca1l6MYF1zKD9xGRbvujshfXZLaCtnA4qbaw=
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 17:23:31 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3212/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remove handshake confirmed test for KeyUpdte (#3212)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc8b813e904d_65c23fc3acacd96077968"; 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: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 01:23:35 -0000

> So there is no functional reason not to allow updates as soon as 1-RTT keys are available. I think that we should just loosen this entirely. It might not be a good idea to waste a key phase like that, but it certainly doesn't break anything.

If we are to loosing the requirement, I would prefer also adding the 3 PTO recommendation regarding the transition from 1-RTT key (phase 0) to 1-RTT key (phase 1).

Because there is a concern regarding performance and complexity.

When 0-RTT is used, the client's send key transitions from 0-RTT key -> 1-RTT key (phase 0) -> 1-RTT key (phase 1) -> ...

Implementation-wise, it would be best to recommend every transition between these keys to be no earlier than 3 PTO, because then, the server can have a consistent rule on when it would be creating new key, replacing the old one.

At the moment, we are near to that, by saying that the 1-RTT key cannot be updated until an ACK for an 1-RTT packet is being received. *Just* loosening this rule would require server developers to have different timing on how it drops 0.5-RTT key vs. 1-RTT keys - it would be a complication.

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