Re: Long Headers and Version Negotiation

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

I am not all that concerned about the VN storm. I'll file an issue, and
would like input on "treat all long headers as initials" vs. "Make 0xff
invariant".

On Jan 7, 2018 3:19 PM, "Martin Thomson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> We had a similar concern with TLS, in that a server that advertises
> 0-RTT support could later decide to disable TLS 1.3.  That leads to a
> similar sort of issue: 0-RTT data hitting a server that doesn't know
> how to handle it.  We concluded that advertising 0-RTT was a
> commitment to support that configuration until the 0-RTT ticket
> expired (at least to the extent that the server wouldn't choke on
> 0-RTT).
>
> Mike's right in saying that QUIC is somewhat better able to cope.  Not
> using ordered delivery means that this turns into a flood of version
> negotiation packets rather than anything immediately fatal.  That
> said, we could recommend that servers treat 0-RTT-enabled tickets as a
> commitment to support a given version.  That effectively means
> disabling 0-RTT on versions that you plan to decommission.  Maybe
> that's a manageability consideration more than a protocol one.
>
> On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Nick Banks <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > If you are sending 0-RTT packets then you have connected to this server
> > before and should be able to remember the version you used. The only
> issue
> > then, is if the server stops supporting a particular version and then you
> > try to reconnect. Either way, a server might want to have some throttling
> > logic for VN packets sent out; but I don’t think it would be the end of
> the
> > world if it didn’t.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Nick Banks
> >
> >
> >
> > From: QUIC [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Martin Duke
> > Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 2:39 PM
> > To: IETF QUIC WG <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Long Headers and Version Negotiation
> >
> >
> >
> > The invariants draft only reserves the 0x80 and 0x40 codepoints in the
> first
> > byte of the packet.
> >
> >
> >
> > The transport draft suggests that only initial packets should trigger
> > version negotiation. However, the Initial Packet byte (0xff) is not
> > invariant. So for version negotiation to work at all, servers must send
> VN
> > packets for any long header type where the version is unsupported --
> > otherwise, QUICv2 might select 0xe3 as the Initial Packet and v1 servers
> > would ignore it.
> >
> >
> >
> > On the other hand, in 0RTT cases this might create a storm of VN packets
> if
> > the version is wrong. I suppose clients are probably not sending 0RTT if
> > they don't know the supported versions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Am I thinking about this correctly? If so, I'm happy to file an issue,
> and a
> > PR if we agree that the correct solution is to reply with VN to all long
> > headers with unsupported versions.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Martin Duke
>