Re: Stream0 Design Team Proposal

[Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <[e-mail]>]

I only had a quick pass over text but I like the concept and appreciate the rationales given.

In particular it seems to decouple QUIC from TLS and it may be worth keeping as a design guideline. Consider a separate theoretical simplified handshake for embedded devices that always negotiate via ed/x25519 - would that fit cleanly in framing structure and handshake messaging?

On the open issue of confirming client finished - I lean towards an explicit signal unless that leads to eternal ping pong. It takes out the guesswork and seen from a generic handshake perspective it may be more actionable without detailing why a key epoch was locked in.

Mikkel

________________________________
From: QUIC <[e-mail]> on behalf of Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 8:39:53 AM
To: Kazuho Oku
Cc: Eric Rescorla; IETF QUIC WG; Ian Swett
Subject: Re: Stream0 Design Team Proposal

Thank you for your implementation and your report -- this is terrific and helpful!

On your note about CRYPTO_HS frames, I think your idea is clever. Just to ensure that I am understanding it correctly, I believe you're proposing defining:
0x10 - 0x17: STREAM frame
0x18 - 0x1F: CRYPTO_HS frame

We can the same frame format for CRYPTO_HS as STREAM except that CRYPTO_HS will not have the stream ID field. This means an implementation handling these frames can reuse the stream machinery with a small change to parse the header bits as follows:

if (type & 0x10)  {  // STREAM or CRYPTO_HS frame
    if (type & 0x08) streamID = varint_consume(frame);
    if (type & 0x04) offset = varint_consume(frame);
    if (type & 0x02) length = varint_consume(frame);
    if (type & 0x01) fin = 1;
    read body if present
}

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
FWIW, I am happy to tell you that I have a working PoC code for the
proposed approach.

On the QUIC side, I saw 2% (124 lines) increase in code size (more on
that below). On the TLS side, I also saw 2% (175 lines) increase.
However please look at the code size change especially on the QUIC
side with grain of salt, as it is just a PoC.

As expected, the key and encryption-level management on the QUIC side
became very clean. Following are some of the design decisions I made
as well as the outcomes:

* All the interaction between picotls and quicly are accompanied by
"epoch". Handshake messages are attributed with their epochs so that
they do not get protected by the wrong key, or so that octets received
under an incorrect encryption context cannot be misused.

* All the traffic keys are governed by quicly (managing some traffic
keys in TLS while managing PNE key in QUIC seems messy).

* The Initial key is setup by quicly, wheeras other traffic keys are
installed by picotls by calling a callback named
update_traffic_key_cb. The callback accepts and installs 6 keys in
total: for three levels (i.e. 0-RTT, handshake, 1-RTT) in two
directions (send-side and receive-side).

* Three PN spaces have their own AEAD encryption key. Initial PN and
Handshake PN spaces have one aead decryption key each. Application PN
space has up to two decryption keys: either for 0-RTT and 1-RTT or for
two 1-RTT keys during key update.

It was a pain to have a dedicated frame encoding for CRYPTO_HS, even
though we can reuse (and I reused) the retransmission and reassembly
logic of QUIC streams for the handshake flows. About a half of the
code size increase comes from that (the other half comes from the
added abstraction for having two contexts for the handshake). I would
prefer reusing the STREAM frame encoding for the handshake data. We
could possibly use a different base offset (i.e. for CRYPTO_HS frames
we could use 0b00011XXX, whereas the STREAM frames use 0b00010XXX), as
well as omitting the Stream ID field.

Overall, now that I have a PoC, I am more confident that the proposed
approach is the correct path forward. It *simplifies* the QUIC stack
at the same time giving us better security properties as well as
fixing various issues in the current design (as discussed in the
design doc).


2018-05-23 10:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Swett <ianswett=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>:
> Dear QUIC WG,
>
>
> On behalf of the Stream 0 Design Team, I am pleased to report that we have
> consensus on a proposed approach to share with the WG. The DT's proposal
> will make QUIC and TLS work closer together and incorporates ideas from
> DTLS, but it does not use the DTLS protocol itself.
>
>
> The DT believes this solves the important open Stream 0 issues. The proposal
> will be a bit more invasive in TLS, but we believe it is the right long-term
> direction and several TLS stacks (BoringSSL, PicoTLS, NSS, and Mint) are
> willing and able to do the work necessary.. A number of stacks are currently
> working on implementations of this new approach, which we hope to have in
> time for the Interim meeting.
>
>
> A design document describing the overall approach can be found at:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fRsJqPinJl8N3b-bflDRV6auojfJLkxddT93j6SwHY8/edit
>
>
> A PR making the changes to the QUIC documents can be found at:
>
> https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1377
>
>
> A few design details did not have clear consensus, but it was felt it would
> be better to discuss those in the wider WG than delay the design team.  A
> consistent choice was made in the PR and these issues are mentioned in
> Appendix B of the design doc.
>
>
> As always, comments and questions welcome. That said, this is a big PR and
> we recognize that some editorial work is going to be needed before merging.
> In the interest of letting people follow along, and to keep github from
> falling over, we ask people to keep discussion on the mailing list and
> refrain from making PR comments.
>
>
> See you in Kista!
>
>
> Ian and Eric



--
Kazuho Oku