RE: Consensus Calls for Transport/TLS issues, post-Cupertino

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

I think we’ve amply demonstrated that implicit signals don’t work.  I’d like to see an explicit confirmation of handshake completion that happens at 1-RTT.

From: QUIC <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of David Schinazi
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:07 PM
To: Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <[e-mail]>; IETF QUIC WG <[e-mail]>; Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>; Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Consensus Calls for Transport/TLS issues, post-Cupertino

+1

I think the text we have in the spec today is better than the proposal to never discard the handshake keys.
My preference would be to spend the time to fix the issue, and not add a temporary workaround for now.

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 12:51 AM Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I agree with Kazuho here. The issue of migration was not one we had considered. I was going through this with Kazuho, and we may have identified yet another issue with handshake retransmissions and migration, which is present in the current spec.

Sadly, I don't think we can call this issue done.

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:14 PM Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Without a way to move to a single PN space I find this a deal breaker. I might do a custom version of the protocol.


________________________________
Fra: QUIC <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> på vegne af Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sendt: tirsdag, oktober 22, 2019 6:58 AM
Til: Martin Thomson
Cc: IETF QUIC WG
Emne: Re: Consensus Calls for Transport/TLS issues, post-Cupertino



2019年10月22日(火) 11:38 Martin Thomson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019, at 12:39, Nick Banks wrote:
>  I'd also prefer to fix the problem, even if it means bringing back
> something like RETIRE_KEY.

I would prefer to think of this proposed resolution as a temporary one.  I don't think that we agreed to keep the handshake keys indefinitely, only that we would use that option as a fallback position until we found a better solution.

I might point out that #3121 is not proposal-ready as a way to resolve #2863. That is because it does not define how to send and receive Handshake packets until or after migration happens. There would be a deadlock unless both endpoints agree on how that should be done (e.g., how to select SCID, whether the path used for Handshake packets migrates too).

Without that being clarified, can we say that we are ready for a consensus call?


On that basis, I think that it would be best if we open a new issue that says "Handshake keys can't ever be dropped".

We might still conclude not to address that issue, but the important thing is to ensure that any solution works properly.


--
Kazuho Oku