Re: Stream0 Design Team Proposal

Eric Rescorla <> Wed, 23 May 2018 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B6C412D7E2 for <>; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xwHJGJcfTg24 for <>; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 019F1127978 for <>; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l12-v6so26759319oth.6 for <>; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dvTTb3t4jd39G5NrgbgszDn8dXHAranPpchjQ83+Hrg=; b=wn1rTn3rsDt3dZhfFrWM2Dx7RJvlii/priLyBsFppgZpbcr0ty9g9o1R9iAnIJpJcM XNZDNnuUdy/0iSpCTMLm6rnZrIotWjQEZn96Jv/O9u+ubWjc7JcsLT+XexdFhwQgzi9C l2y7XWe0IeLAqjC0Th8ongou7kaEri/0kRKW9wuiJEymXPB9/bfuKJT9GFm2LAqU0s0e EJgqDPdl4ZxqLL/3ftaStDNxXykaBTQbK8ERWml9x/tZGUo3w6X+f+4VSw5qCDcU9FLP juGuluYInxZSipeDb6oBniZpfpl7/7fom+olP//ma/iyqP4z+q4Kj1uRjUFb8Ba/+pWu zKGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dvTTb3t4jd39G5NrgbgszDn8dXHAranPpchjQ83+Hrg=; b=QENFK8sNXWIhuELFZ84/KahEoL19L5TbiB7m1CdPCNQMtFKnKJBS7/KuY9xBUrCUGl uqnVIxybJlgZlu6MLcJwsV1zZZTwhCC5NCO9DDL781S3KPDkk5mgtkidu+r7FJQDez+P iridT5jIAT8qVnaMX2Z81OE6Z/fhCS5c7fxDooWL9XXuiqZyvhTXUHhyAiWwnh++U507 /vO8m6WmKZ77OeL7v7uxrdSVSFpfzJVNPD0my80YjJyILY1hdgbYj4J90CHzGFm1ktmZ dyLs4w/WRo46akS3eDxug8qs6hkTAfMrRx2W/reQTKgEDdupKL8dvsKriWWsEaFifjbc JrXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwfDTR7z2x6sNCKaFs+qaeg1mw+y6LwqEh+3/0Bis9CBBXdjUE0/ 5qeo3gCxkm6B8BYMp/bsspsOHVZUDKX7EplvVEtBBg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZp05qMJO9dcR68YBRnecDL5PhKw8IQYeks+dqP8edV0TtzaCGlEn23AeRXZ4SSU6z4OCGWne5x0szhN1p109rQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5917:: with SMTP id t23-v6mr2875332oth.217.1527107071201; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:ac9:66:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 13:23:50 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Stream0 Design Team Proposal
To: Ted Hardie <>
Cc: Ian Swett <>, Eric Rescorla <>, IETF QUIC WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000836754056ce5523f"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:24:36 -0000

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Ted Hardie <> wrote:

> Howdy,
> Thanks for sharing the document.  I have a couple of detailed comments,
> and then some high level comments which I will put into a separate email.
> First, the document says this:
> Though proper analysis is needed, it is not likely that the removal of the
> TLS record layer will cause a security concern, because the security
> properties provided by QUIC packets are identical to what have been
> provided by TLS records.
> I'm not sure that this is actually the statement we need to analyze,
> though. We need to be sure that the security properties of TLS records used
> in TCP packets are available in QUIC streams in QUIC packets using UDP as a
> multiplexing layer. There appear to be some difference in where the
> facilities the overall system provides that may require more description.
> As an example, I think the way padding works in this proposal needs more
> description. If I understand correctly, each TLS record is encrypted
> separately and the presence or absence of padding is indicated by a
> padding_length byte present in each record. That means the padding is
> related to the record, not the packet; by removing the record layer and
> using QUIC frames, though, we seem to have a different padding structure.
> QUIC uses padding frames, not padding within other frame types which is
> both conceptually and practically different.

I believe you have misunderstood. In this document, there are no TLS
records and TLS handshake messages are carried in CRYPTO_HS frames.
Accordingly, padding is provided in the same fashion as QUIC ordinarily
does, i.e., using PADDING frames.

Similarly, I'd be interested in more text on the interaction with
> precedence, since the loss of the record layer means that the former
> guarantee that the record layer makes records available in the order in
> which they were protected now seems to be unavailable.

I'm not quite sure I follow what you are asking about here. In both cases,
TLS sits on top of QUIC's reliable in-order deliver guarantees. Is the
point you are making that formerly, if QUIC violated these guarantees, that
would result in TLS handshake failure, whereas now it does not?


> regards,
> Ted
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Ian Swett <
>> wrote:
>> *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:
>> <>A
>> PR making the changes to the QUIC documents can be found
>> at:
>> <>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