Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 17:23:31 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts
 <reply+AFTOJK7PTROYBHQW33LVZ2V32XVJHEVBNHHB6CGIZA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3212/552258309@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 KeyUpdte
 (#3212)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc8b813e904d_65c23fc3acacd96077968";
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/nbd0UQ-x_iyVGLnulimUN8P5qAw>


----==_mimepart_5dc8b813e904d_65c23fc3acacd96077968
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> 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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3212#issuecomment-552258309
----==_mimepart_5dc8b813e904d_65c23fc3acacd96077968
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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).</p>
<p>Because there is a concern regarding performance and complexity.</p>
<p>When 0-RTT is used, the client's send key transitions from 0-RTT key -&gt; 1-RTT key (phase 0) -&gt; 1-RTT key (phase 1) -&gt; ...</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. <em>Just</em> 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.</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&mdash;<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3212?email_source=notifications&amp;email_token=AFTOJKZVDE7THZ3PRZVQSDTQTCXZHA5CNFSM4JLOVOK2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEDVMWBI#issuecomment-552258309">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFTOJK4SF4LVNS7M2X42NP3QTCXZHANCNFSM4JLOVOKQ">unsubscribe</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AFTOJKYODSEGONLREZS7LXLQTCXZHA5CNFSM4JLOVOK2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEDVMWBI.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /></p>
<script type="application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3212?email_source=notifications\u0026email_token=AFTOJKZVDE7THZ3PRZVQSDTQTCXZHA5CNFSM4JLOVOK2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEDVMWBI#issuecomment-552258309",
"url": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3212?email_source=notifications\u0026email_token=AFTOJKZVDE7THZ3PRZVQSDTQTCXZHA5CNFSM4JLOVOK2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEDVMWBI#issuecomment-552258309",
"name": "View Issue"
},
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>
----==_mimepart_5dc8b813e904d_65c23fc3acacd96077968--