Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Flow control for post-handshake CRYPTO messages (#1834)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Fri, 26 October 2018 02:02 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 63AD81294D7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, 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_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 ID9XfTkESkzE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CED7126CC7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:02:22 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1540519342; bh=MrbQs9bBfb1j4VQ1heFbh3i64K6EuWLsyoqnga6sjmI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=jVQLZbp0nRXubet7FnoWaGWtHnQAr/cZDVC3CEwed1wcMgXOzuClZAvwMXeFJIkp2 eZiwDlXBLItLtwur3uL2ZsCn8E5rEBc0r39JwUjG7HxxjK09XsWnds4+dFZPcD0C12 AmsbOSAFyurChYL9zSvlcFfcvLC2En5cYTzPwZIY=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abfb68a3df1ef821308838f1de88aaa9b0670f7e7e92cf0000000117ea37ae92a169ce15e0229d@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1834/433261852@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1834@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1834@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Flow control for post-handshake CRYPTO messages (#1834)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bd275ae4ef1f_4cf3fed27ad45b8200133d"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/xkshGyHyh-9oWNnSxu6S6VANBY4>
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: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 02:02:25 -0000

>> I had assumed that TLS stacks always expose the 1-RTT read key to the QUIC stacks acting as a server when it receives ClientFinished. I'd be curious to know if there are TLS stacks that takes an alternative approach.
> 
> That was what I had assumed too, until I thought through the nasty interactions with partial Handshake flights and 0-RTT. That is, the TLS stack makes secrets available at the point that it would normally be installing them for its own use. In that way, a server wouldn't install the 1-RTT read keys until it had processed the finished from the client, exactly as you say.

Thank you for pointing that out. I forgot about that exception. So while that is the only exception picotls has in terms of key installation timing, I agree that it's merely about having one exception or two...

> But it also smells weird, so perhaps proper flow control (toss post-hs stuff onto stream 0?) would be better instead?

I am totally fine with handwaving, but in case we are to have flow control, I'd prefer having flow control for CRYPTO streams in all epochs. They could all use a fixed-size window that would be defined in the specification. I prefer that because IMO having flow control for every stream (i.e. all the ordinary streams + all the 4 CRYPTO streams) is a simplification.

-- 
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/1834#issuecomment-433261852