Conflicting requirements?
Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Mon, 08 June 2020 21:01 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC9F3A102C for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 14:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 H6tw97g3Me7S for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 14:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7A443A1029 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 14:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id r77so7390935ior.3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 14:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=5nWu3TguOUxDiAx1SyWc5OLICDnngAIfFJnJG9iJMgQ=; b=HNBMXhYwRMU2DKDAmgqRPjSfDXB0AJDY1ceaF1YUSJ9fQmmPjO3VPssBbx6LJcalhG MbBq2ByfBZ1dSFzgd0lUUKV7c6YM1B9wjw5O62nQNlRj5ZlLwTNqkl4z5MlR/x89xkmh svl0XwxzpoY+2pRAc3dwvwz6H94SgO4dK1ixqVbSxYwoEg9tvPUKn8BN72QqDu5T1+EP jUQHKvfFOk+ZYhy7LrYMLldhqnn9XQqiZKMHNd9wJnYc0xYQXB8OcWc6hVstmVtM4EvA XwsqaJKxubAbjtrGZnNDKAjt2N6ECsddwFqiYVB9GPSnURrreB8qI10GiIXhDYYpJju4 LmwA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=5nWu3TguOUxDiAx1SyWc5OLICDnngAIfFJnJG9iJMgQ=; b=nvhSrHfkCE7gsfv/vK7BnRufj6iTOSYxB8CFM0P9p0rq+t5xoA4OXETYFhNwvckiBF NdS64Ykg11r0S9MRNAdMtdzlr0m12KsnPVgJhlek1cpVtSZPRylpU4VDLCGbHyezVn4U lgNNQtaLv3i4jhiOXlKKvsNQFYdJ+Pc+qoi0fMr1Lc7aKo92XAV1OTXgUBxAlJ6ma0Xi 3/c1J+6oSyxRJjwYkRXHW659qIjQ2BaaM9K3ya6DKgMrNofBixH6F0faV7KsahZ7jWO+ V+GuSTdq/8fPWz2Z8o4aB252yBcmZgdGVwp8cCwCJn3vW/uyipLpgFJunffxxD0sYbe2 m21A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531cre0Z4Jvs30cU3MtOGOeNyY/yeLQ7kNN3M42Jpg44aMm8SuxN pgtoalEVrxIJb0EkPSX24MaOwR/QMOQUcaxLou6UKcpHi/8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJywvDRLLtQU1KcfXm8ctqie/vgAWgcrWyx7GRLGMDKeeZjQQTKSrquWM/QKt/Lglpdx+FGR2LljiMDh1bGBtjY=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:dc8:: with SMTP id 191mr23900350jax.95.1591650063006; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 14:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 14:00:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxSg=oWNLUoNK6Rg6x1KL5NvtWz8qyvk3aa-UWL3HtaodA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Conflicting requirements?
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009cc5c805a798e893"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/A3EHHYIMixurQRTSjkzZzeQHjPE>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 21:01:15 -0000
In section 8.1 of quic-transport, When using ALPN, endpoints MUST immediately close a connection (see Section 10.3 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT <https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-tls.html#QUIC-TRANSPORT>]) with a no_application_protocol TLS alert (QUIC error code 0x178; see Section 4.10 <https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-tls.html#tls-errors>) if an application protocol is not negotiated. In 4.10 of quic-tls, Endpoints MAY use a generic error code to avoid possibly exposing confidential information. Which one takes precedence? May the server send a generic error when there is no ALPN code?
- Conflicting requirements? Martin Duke
- Re: Conflicting requirements? Christian Huitema
- Re: Conflicting requirements? Martin Duke
- Re: Conflicting requirements? Lucas Pardue