Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

["Christopher Wood" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for clarifying, David! This text reflects my understanding and is fine by my. 

Best,
Chris

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019, at 11:19 AM, David Schinazi wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I've chatted with Daniel and Chris offline, and I think there might
> have been some miscommunication here. Please allow me to
> rephrase what I think is going on, and please let me know if
> this accurately represents your views.
> 
> Daniel has a IoT use-case where due to memory constraints,
> a client knows it can only handle a certain number of tickets,
> and therefore Daniel was wondering if it would make sense to
> make the requested number of tickets a required maximum
> (as in a RFC 2119 MUST). However, server operators on this
> thread have indicated that a MUST would get in the way of
> implementing this, due to STEK rotation for example. Daniel
> understands this, and is OK with the current mindset of the
> document (which is only a hint, not a MUST). Additionally,
> Daniel would prefer to see the document move forward.
> 
> In order to try to address Daniel's comments, I attempted
> to rephrase the normative section to suggest in more
> stronger terms that servers really shouldn't be sending
> more than the client's request, but keeping it a SHOULD.
> 
> Here is the PR with the rephrase:
> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequest/pull/10
> 
> Here's a copy of the updated paragraph in the PR:
>  Clients can use TicketRequestContents.count to indicate the number of
>  tickets they would prefer to receive. Servers SHOULD NOT send more
>  tickets than TicketRequestContents.count, as clients will most likely
>  discard any additional tickets. Servers SHOULD additionally place a
>  limit on the number of tickets they are willing to send to save
>  resources. Therefore, the number of NewSessionTicket messages sent
>  SHOULD be the minimum of the server's self-imposed limit and
>  TicketRequestContents.count.
> 
> Regarding Viktor's suggestion, I personally believe it would increase the
> complexity of the proposal, and I don't see use-cases compelling enough
> to warrant that complexity. I would rather keep this proposal as simple as
> possible.
> 
> Thanks,
> David
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 2:48 PM Viktor Dukhovni <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:53:08AM +0800, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> > 
> >  > > Somebody should try to avoid ending up with N new tickets after
> >  > > every connection, but in could well be the client.
> >  > 
> >  > Yes, I think that can and ought to be the client. The client is really the
> >  > only party that can know how many tickets have been "consumed" by potentially
> >  > failed attempts to connect that the server didn't see in time or got dropped.
> > 
> >  OK, in that case, the proposal, is that on resumption, if the proposed
> >  extension is *absent*, then the server should generally send just one rather
> >  than any larger default.
> > 
> >  If the extension is present, it is up to the client to not blindly ask for N
> >  tickets each time, and generally ask for just one ticket on resumption, once it
> >  has sufficiently many tickets for the desired concurrency level, with each
> >  parallel thread obtaining one replacement ticket its next connection.
> > 
> >  As discussed clients that prefer to reuse tickets, can ask for zero, and get 1
> >  only as-needed. If the server supports reuse then all is well.
> > 
> >  If the server does not support and refuses reuse, then it will issue a new
> >  ticket each time and may only accept it once, but the client may have a
> >  single-slot cache. If the client makes only one connection at a time, this
> >  also works, but if/when its handshakes with the server overlap (a narrow window
> >  of ~1RTT) and two connections attempt to resume with the same ticket, one of
> >  them will end up doing a full handshake, but only when the client and server
> >  applications have incompatible ticket reuse expectations. Some friction
> >  when the client and server are mismatched is not the end of the world.
> > 
> >  So on the whole I think the proposal still works with just a numeric signal
> >  (tweaked with 0xff == none and 0 == reuse), and the onus to "generally send 1"
> >  on resumption moved to the client (i.e. clients that don't solicit ticket reuse
> >  should request only 1 ticket once they have enough).
> > 
> >  -- 
> >  Viktor.
> > 
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  TLS mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>