Re: Consensus Call on #2344: Frames that are allowed in 0-RTT packets

Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <> Wed, 06 March 2019 05:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC1612D4E7 for <>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 21:39:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 M1K8PlYhktVR for <>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 21:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27B7B128AFB for <>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 21:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d25so7605132pfn.8 for <>; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 21:39:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :mime-version; bh=eJeU/w85s8KbyR6ROA2UbLPdaKH7ILN2puwry2sVJcY=; b=bgH9aF1T7g+KfGPV4lZP9vpIfCSDlYw+k+lj/PewxTrpuR8O+hl+fVm3twOFJCP6pB HUGima9v4PDOTfBG53CcSJqkbWLbPlUBb0S1DEIMnYt3qjLw01jLXzjnI33AT+f/VNXa qMMHtFDrZQN4aDtln47wGcGSwxGrOBaINSDcH34AkG6ygWx2U6wYtTX4t+KIxeGuFcAB Uz21odQwA1uhq2C1NtxJ/TkJ91Zkg6IG7OfFYzrtdkG3zYpdHZuBmKpt3o6dQUC5a3UR 0fujdZvIUVic6Tx0xN65Tmpf0bJADLm27LCsV1A1qVWy9cmDp0/TuendsX66TDmlRdpg SV6g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:mime-version; bh=eJeU/w85s8KbyR6ROA2UbLPdaKH7ILN2puwry2sVJcY=; b=ZFUsDTAxwNoPV4gUvjTKUbomi4wjgiEi5W8qH14QH6++zDsQI2/X2eRJd/Mwmzqgoo VSAURqtnEYdq9tDlwmERuEA8ZpkRYb8LtSrGSU1W447vIrBkR73+zO7L5eDjrY4Qm0Zf wqRPWOPgiKbZ9DUfAw8lQr4Yl2EHKbVO0GRvPMjzqQNskmjjHRKx0vWiF/xj8ThHTUWV l3YvfeAREBHU3r/mKlBtkRtid/Ik5C45Kmr0GW2AsY0dLieQthdtZYMTo/nelPXQISr3 gBmpWQsCHuS87BlHB3MWuhMeZGJayUF44eJmqjMtAJQbc2rffDXtRaO8Yh9mC+s9sV3x l3KQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVz6OBl4AuT9jenJJOPapUtZ5sPBzayhIGh3b94QpGh27yNB7EI Bi7uFg/q8U2nmBzm8uUi5w8oaVXt
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqymOxfqmN+xOE80nE9Om0eUKHaE8j8/cMtxkBEl1TCAIIvMkjEqAi5U5BmkqeX480BCMKF5Jg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:89c7:: with SMTP id v190mr4495833pgd.370.1551850741436; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 21:39:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DB6PR10MB1766.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([]) by with ESMTPSA id y7sm1052661pgf.42.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Mar 2019 21:39:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <>
To: Mark Nottingham <>, IETF QUIC WG <>
CC: Lars Eggert <>
Subject: Re: Consensus Call on #2344: Frames that are allowed in 0-RTT packets
Thread-Topic: Consensus Call on #2344: Frames that are allowed in 0-RTT packets
Thread-Index: ATA1NTQwv4wX1HyS+evByoZMU3ED98k9Uoo8
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 05:38:48 +0000
Message-ID: <DB6PR10MB17666DB413F540D90DB5B716AC730@DB6PR10MB1766.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DB6PR10MB17666DB413F540D90DB5B716AC730DB6PR10MB1766EURP_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 06 Mar 2019 05:39:04 -0000

There is a pending suggested change on TLS impact on state. I’m fine with a negative list in 0-RTT, but would prefer a positive list, possibly in a table. I think the discussion on replay could be trimmed a bit.

Fra: QUIC <> på vegne af Mark Nottingham <>
Sendt: onsdag, marts 6, 2019 4:51 AM
Cc: Lars Eggert
Emne: Consensus Call on #2344: Frames that are allowed in 0-RTT packets


We discussed this in Tokyo, and then continued discussion on-list. The editors now believe that this PR resolves the issue:

..... and discussion so far seems to support consensus to do so. If you object, please do so on the issue or in response to this message; absent any pushback, we'll declare consensus at the end of the week.


Mark and Lars, WG Chairs