Re: [TLS] 0-RTT and Anti-Replay

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 23 March 2015 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B447A1AD09F for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Qwc5NAXqx2ev for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22c.google.com (mail-ob0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22c]) (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 8C4B11AD069 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obcxo2 with SMTP id xo2so129335993obc.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=BE3LbgWKmNkDWDwmZ6IDfe07e4vbEdci07sEXxSkrDk=; b=m0dgvNI5lRlXyBr73r9uTWMTZhUyLCXit+4tEHVwLnIDAdRXypGpWFc5hru1dH0Hx9 M/1us+syDjO7EzD3OP2uvXCcbtMkSzPOsUO9Fw5IZxUQcrCSZ5FJ94P2PbMSgkHnD8O3 SVL+HEqSmGeAdPV1yuOsxTv/UhcW85l/PlJuDROT8IUDNScKD6H1jVV1nNhKClT/ZhjL dIAzqBpLG0g/vIYxt7R5gq+yEa9JmZQ6vkRjNRowHSQ8b8FpfAIqL/qYM0doqyEJiA/N y1M7Wp9l6eweMEzwSayJwrIeny/dAWG3+E25zL9tsflyqvbqCL02wTMR4wi34gHwJF04 XHaA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.129.161 with SMTP id nx1mr239292oeb.77.1427133948041; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.48.151 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNqV1_8kKo=2oXf06z2XWNEDqFgD96AcVJTTX2F9jhEQ3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABcZeBP9LaGhDVETsJeecnAtSPUj=Kv37rb_2esDi3YaGk9b4w@mail.gmail.com> <20150323084716.GM21267@localhost> <CABcZeBO88cvxXJULgpNCxC_Q4HhtOOVnpCoUWmo6=7GkVhFkdQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150323171955.GP21267@localhost> <CABcZeBOd8eftMhSk++uS6Dhc+2te=oFhA5oUB9BT9kWX2KWSKg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNqV1_8kKo=2oXf06z2XWNEDqFgD96AcVJTTX2F9jhEQ3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:05:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXY+qkxgzOgVyvgmFZfynLjUEEmmkSM4ZuAk=zCZkQ+UQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/_X3rwzoiqXmOhqovQUivjupkNXE>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] 0-RTT and Anti-Replay
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:05:49 -0000

On 23 March 2015 at 10:55, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>; wrote:
> I like the proposed refinement here, what I perceive of as #3, that the
> stack does not replay it (sacrificing reliability). That seems both like
> less of a footgun, and gives a chance for a little more application
> flexibility on how to handle the exception.

I get the sense from the discussion that people have different takes
on #2 and #3.  Do we really need to decide here?  Can we offer TLS
APIs the choice?  Some might even choose to implement both models and
kick the can even further down the road.  I don't actually see any
problem with that.