IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Separate APIs for 0-RTT

Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Tue, 13 June 2017 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77E86129AA0 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 OlYcK9IC71Z3 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from welho-filter3.welho.com (welho-filter3.welho.com [83.102.41.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F6112922E for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter3.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8311C2A55E; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 23:55:35 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp2.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.85]) by localhost (welho-filter3.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.25]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dflZpn2MV697; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 23:55:35 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from LK-Perkele-V2 (87-92-51-204.bb.dnainternet.fi [87.92.51.204]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp2.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42A3327B; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 23:55:35 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 23:55:30 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>, Colm MacCárthaigh <colm@allcosts.net>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170613205530.GB13223@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
References: <CABcZeBMpeBhcKoJYuMwLyER0VBh+RtVr6amWMPos3CJipXYHcA@mail.gmail.com> <DM2PR21MB00916718A71749E5D2CB19C38CC20@DM2PR21MB0091.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <CABcZeBO+Qprg4DTwNJrFU1PXDPyKbbdakMrF9fhe02jRL50cow@mail.gmail.com> <8e206c83-645f-6389-a7bd-ddd51e747ea2@akamai.com> <CAAF6GDfyqMndibTujY83_Xha2dZn7qvaCpZJw7xZ--b=-EOaYA@mail.gmail.com> <bf4506e7-13ce-ce7f-d20e-67a0d73c642a@akamai.com> <CAAF6GDePg9FL0JgzrWrTcrK7X=J0_fKjHVCj9EScvyQobJWTKA@mail.gmail.com> <20170613183536.GA12760@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <63c8ac33-489c-0ace-d4ba-b960cd965281@akamai.com> <DM2PR21MB0091B8DC8780B4FA67464F0A8CC20@DM2PR21MB0091.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR21MB0091B8DC8780B4FA67464F0A8CC20@DM2PR21MB0091.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/WDwCsg50wxPKiZhjnlqhq1a5hNo>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Separate APIs for 0-RTT
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:55:38 -0000

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 06:57:05PM +0000, Andrei Popov wrote:
> Regarding RFC language, I think we could be more specific:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A TLS implementation SHOULD/MUST only send 0-RTT application data if the application has explicitly opted in;
> 
> 2. A TLS implementation SHOULD/MUST only accept 0-RTT application data if the application has explicitly opted in;
> 
> 3. When delivering 0-RTT application data to the application, a TLS implementation SHOULD/MUST provide a way for the application to distinguish it from the rest of the application data.

First of these has to be MUST, or you get problems like I outlined
earlier.

And to implement checking for client only sending "safe" data, you need
the second and third.


-Ilari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email