Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-quic-transport-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 07 January 2021 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 268D63A0DD5 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 15:37:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-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 QxlkmPkulC-u for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 15:36:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (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 1C7D33A0DD7 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 15:36:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id 23so18636871lfg.10 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 15:36:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=o7AVgRu9FqKRvOhIDTHamzz+50+e0rraM+jEikWcLVI=; b=CBypg3ubRgEDtWloSlGeJftrwtPgRAcoN3iePfI+G/+FBGaBNLl5k1Sk7MZlOdoH+E /BWR7Rz0ukmZAU/Wenkt+372Qn1CNYhaD8HI5hZqjBqcRZQ8wO01F8raOel1lxhsh6mq PyujcwOKVvHHqOwfbkay8fREHGOmmPsmX6k7kPpQHkpz1vMBnq2pLNHTLVWKgYGMvBqQ IBwnm7KvgJzjpUFb9KoU1hgE7jnqjP1Ut/I7h1AThv3E44POAxnT6Awzd2NYocohuiv0 pzPH38CdApznjErZ44V+g7UKtc3sXGDitiey61vJ+9De2rbc+QIBt3eVDba9nXRO5mC9 DYTw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=o7AVgRu9FqKRvOhIDTHamzz+50+e0rraM+jEikWcLVI=; b=W8aSpj9/J+HmSuGGJxiw9Sx4Luk+IIhRvsUBbzrYoxPiDcrMibAJYJ2qFaOXUVWeto fztBSP3Fh/qt9BD1C/VWR5OVepecVuIytopXt3OukjGCVx8IsaLTQij/qXAvxPGgwHD1 c46xkPc7jyvqBNzjHmhtPT8io795+ynXrRVxbZbOp+ZegXPv88AHmwpB7TTO+d5zD2tj nZlZqFLpGKvC1l7dOlvm6QbtPTNd5Rzf5gsQxNmII3lAT54Y8T8upmC5h8km6BcYj9bH b1yh50zhuvsK8LJs33VAK1XW96TI32D2Y8CZGm9z+7VwlcSUlMt76BQx6ynRCgEnYKm+ d+zQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530inzp1vtMj0d6C0npYHU/BkJWVt+9Q50HgcObvbqZeYTb6u4US cYHuR7l2P2oGYVKdMCUuE8gNeHks+E/XKR4jm50jTA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxi8STWyssMDb6J9um5qB6YORu1ZVwMceQhEsodrCVJtPMlXlL7Ah6IyRbEidP/2clplgxfcOin8MbxhXTre78=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1282:: with SMTP id 2mr311178ljc.383.1610062617208; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 15:36:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160996950953.25754.14270013028683006869@ietfa.amsl.com> <20210107231819.GO93151@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20210107231819.GO93151@kduck.mit.edu>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 15:36:21 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOK=VxkxXw__s-bzFW-3ZZAtqFamZHR5w-edCio2wBETw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-quic-transport-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-quic-transport@ietf.org, WG Chairs <quic-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005d7f5305b857eab5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/zap3Sg_jkldELUx0UKioCwKDafI>
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: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 23:37:02 -0000

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 3:18 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:

> Thanks everyone for the productive discussion.  It's clear that there's
> a lot of background available to those who participated in the previous
> WG discussions but (understandably!) did not make it into the document
> itself, and I appreciate the effort that was put in to help share that with
> me.
>
> Just to state it clearly, at no point has my position been that QUIC v1
> needs to be delayed until a complete version negotiation story exists.
> As this was a "discuss discuss", my goal was to obtain more information
> about the actual situation in order to confirm that there are no
> significant issues, since my interpretation of the text in the document
> itself left that possibility open.
>
> Attempting to summarize salient points:
>
> - the IETF is only currently defining bindings for HTTP over QUIC,
>   though other entities are free to define their own protocol over QUIC
>   at any time.
> - the only way currently defined to discover a QUIC endpoint to use as
>   server for a given HTTP service is the Alt-Svc header field, which
>   uses an ALPN value to indicate the protocol to use; it is perhaps not
>   fully nailed down that the ALPN value will be specific to a particular
>   version of QUIC but the ALPN vlaue probably will be specific to a
>   particular version of QUIC.
>

I don't believe this is correct. You can simply try to connect with QUICv1.



> - A downgrade protection mechanism solely in-band at the QUIC layer will
>   not be a complete solution for existing protocols that may also fall
>   back to a TCP binding (or new protocols that need to traverse networks
>   like the Internet that don't reliably pass UDP in the ways QUIC
>   needs).  New protocols over QUIC that are berift of such legacy would
>   have a complete solution, though.
>

Hmm.... Well, it obviously can't be at the QUIC layer, because you won't be
using QUIC at all, but it can be at the TLS layer.


- In particular, we do *not* expect non-IETF QUIC versions to define
>   their own downgrade protection scheme.  They are expected to either
>   pick up the IETF one (when it exists) or just only use a single
>   version at a time, possibly with out of band configuration.
>

Maybe? I'm not sure there is a consensus one way or the other on this.

-Ekr