IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Should server enforce post-Retry packet numbering?

Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> Mon, 10 August 2020 12:30 UTC

Return-Path: <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.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 A74073A1529 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 05:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
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, 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=litespeedtech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 yVYlZpB6DwME for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 05:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x829.google.com (mail-qt1-x829.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::829]) (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 DBA963A0DD8 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 05:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x829.google.com with SMTP id o22so6495860qtt.13 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 05:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=litespeedtech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=lc005PKCpGDs5FQNy+q4y54pZLknrGqiMTngJwpiHBw=; b=Qv+NOGbQZqcHA0YgIO84wJHCN+IWmVuOtSo9sEquEDekC1eveQcJTjjV+nWYJaL4uT AZDCqfA+c+3WRawL7M6x8LTT6TLiLGuqxPLBk7xBOlif8N0B18rxZKQA/A57e0hx5fip s+7xmDmFo+GYSNK6fH6DBbX8J906UPq0j/yurg6ymawOSE+giHJWfVfr3J14icQzlXza /2HkHaLp5oSMmUkws5U7TDDRrPR3EG2QYlrUi6oMCd6UB1ZfVSju9j2pFAzYV1d13yGt 9dohOPF2KCtwkrLYyDHv1P+1LKQlqXS+6xprVlb6UkTtqq41ndQ1cUBTiULw0OgB/+// 8O4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=lc005PKCpGDs5FQNy+q4y54pZLknrGqiMTngJwpiHBw=; b=CFszmSDHWpt5fFQPZSDkVvUTMMTccssd8kGFKasCoNjKbeQIB+NRQfQ0ak0IWe2e0u 7nlvLca5dtGBC/qhKH1sKiZ8Lhk59/DX0XlYCSWJz+FWiAugDhCPrN7S3en7m0M/HZNQ 3px3hlXH8CjVCToJWY4PPOWih2A9wWvzmxwlnpFYSHKhH4jc3gUOVFrPsvl+PN8OUnb+ zgbrAl6sfHIXPCLeF+EVpFx4LfStWD9ady76opNPtKv4t5jPHaW1Xx5c/2RzGH3S42cH xTxi61Wr97RUWLiOaDBS9w0+LsvxhPGGvE1XqiKlCk174V3ee0cJ+WXzQHEm1MS5TQpi nm5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5315eD/qzUW3TS+X75ZmOTMirbzsk7DlQq50Gc9JQaOaymHb9Y7J 8OYv58Qn4pNSYkgeFc5sceDfhQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyKqNywP63+qmeeTcz2LXLKWF0Z+GZn/tqZTLiSp3RFXxXyqFyRDuxkLZBUzWh/niOOCeH8UQ==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:3203:: with SMTP id y3mr27290551qtd.376.1597062630389; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 05:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lubuntu (ool-44c1d219.dyn.optonline.net. [68.193.210.25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m203sm13679733qke.114.2020.08.10.05.30.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 05:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 08:30:23 -0400
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
To: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Marten Seemann <martenseemann@gmail.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Should server enforce post-Retry packet numbering?
Message-ID: <20200810123022.GC10867@lubuntu>
Mail-Followup-To: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>, Marten Seemann <martenseemann@gmail.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
References: <20200807135410.GA20644@lubuntu> <CAOYVs2rrLmTAduugrupBvLWV0futJUne7r1EU3ix7OWFMqLm2Q@mail.gmail.com> <CACpbDcdSpw2O-9wi_FZymB0HGpRVm8JNuVzi+pXyE_Qf5oHkyg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CACpbDcdSpw2O-9wi_FZymB0HGpRVm8JNuVzi+pXyE_Qf5oHkyg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/sdYoiVQWAyPe-9dFcq1O-Wex1f0>
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, 10 Aug 2020 12:30:35 -0000

I opened issue 3989 [1] on GitHub.

  - Dmitri.

1. https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3989

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 06:31:08PM -0700, Jana Iyengar wrote:
> I think a "can" is enough here. A client that doesn't respect this risks
> running into a server that enforces this MUST NOT and shoots the
> connection. Is there a reason to recommend it?
> 
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 5:47 PM Marten Seemann <martenseemann@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure if I'd increase the size of the token for this check in my
> > implementation, but if you don’t care about a few extra bytes, it probably
> > won’t hurt to perform this check.
> > I'm a bit skeptical if a SHOULD is warranted here though, as the worst
> > that can happen is a nonce reuse for a key that's publicly known anyway. Of
> > course, this might change once a client uses ECH or some kind of version
> > aliasing.
> >
> > That said, I just added a check for this on the interop runner (
> > https://github.com/marten-seemann/quic-interop-runner/pull/130) Clients
> > will now fail the Retry test if they don't increase the packet number on
> > Retry.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 20:54 Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In a couple of threads on Slack, Lars reminded me of an interesting
> >>
> >> MUST NOT in the transport draft:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> " A client MUST NOT reset the packet number for any packet number space
> >>
> >> " after processing a Retry packet; Section 17.2.3 contains more
> >>
> >> " information on this.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This made me wonder whether the server should check that the client
> >>
> >> indeed did not reset the packet number.  This is possible to do by
> >>
> >> including the packet number into the Retry token and then comparing
> >>
> >> this value with the number of the packet that carries the token back.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I could not find such SHOULD in the draft.  Should it be included?
> >>
> >> E.g. "The server SHOULD abort the connection if it detects that packet
> >>
> >> numbers were reset upon Retry."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>   - Dmitri.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status