Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Application close should be disallowed in Initial or Handshake (#3158)

Kazuho Oku <> Mon, 28 October 2019 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B65A12010D for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 03:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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 DH_6H9wuPxL0 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 03:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15CDF120103 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 03:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E8A1C164F for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 03:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572258207; bh=xCPusrH6NX7WDFHEx/XVCJsi5WkzdtB415KHn63A7qo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=gqJUHhkIdzaOGxetztKjwwgNSGj0Bg7XTYoy6Zx2Uh4HS9f0WfWILYGb2IzS9VJPA kAVXJud0xACCGQjaddwEdfweiwDjZWwgQqe2rPPGhHwLdJIT+UnzxBTX3/9vYtyBiJ 3dH+YCnm9At7XyLV7Ogyh8NVlxRYNZ6jIqIfN0PA=
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 03:23:27 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3158/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Application close should be disallowed in Initial or Handshake (#3158)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db6c19fdf51e_241f3f80e88cd9641617ee"; 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, 28 Oct 2019 10:23:30 -0000

Another issue with option 1 is that we might leak sensitive data.

Consider the case where a server receives a coalesced Initial / 0–RTT packet, and decides to respond with an application-close as the outcome of processing the 0-RTT application data. In this case, application-close should not be sent in Initial packet, as it would be an act of an application responding to the client in cleartext.

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