IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] 0-RTT, server Application Data, and client Finished

Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Thu, 28 January 2016 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ilariliusvaara@welho.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 0D1BD1B2F88 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:09:15 -0800 (PST)
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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 u5C5ebK5Ly-j for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:09:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from welho-filter1.welho.com (welho-filter1.welho.com [83.102.41.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF861B2F87 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:09:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter1.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C398597; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:09:11 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp1.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.84]) by localhost (welho-filter1.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.23]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aGAWbuA6-CM3; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:09:10 +0200 (EET)
Received: from LK-Perkele-V2 (87-100-151-39.bb.dnainternet.fi [87.100.151.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp1.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB7B3285; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:09:10 +0200 (EET)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:09:09 +0200
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Message-ID: <20160128190909.GA11429@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
References: <CAF8qwaCty7qjJGobr+god_TDo+q82hZx2FpOitLQ0ANctWBZ0g@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXD5ZudUW7d2uQSSo1ULeOgxD97H5Sd0ZN3MXy9X6+4qA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF8qwaCq7LzXp+5ULWYakLXar3_J1QmerfC7EpqHg1TXgxeu5A@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWQT9WDQDJ9EW21STgr_7j4VFqCh4mWS=1Ko7o=sAyXkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF8qwaCAbYsQhq-VL=ktfvDLR+1y6TCkFZ7VhmVKNCVUroOJNQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUSg1ah9pMRVrDq5SUvkH79aKQXVzW_KNN+SO+DSHoUmw@mail.gmail.com> <CAF8qwaB+zB2=rCdNP22vCM9ZjCEXyeNP4x5=jKK1_gq0F=2yiw@mail.gmail.com> <20160127194416.GA10603@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <CAF8qwaB_nKF=YxT-ZRK6D0Pv_wGRhVjHZ-5eDguGh_1JABz4pA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAF8qwaB_nKF=YxT-ZRK6D0Pv_wGRhVjHZ-5eDguGh_1JABz4pA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/mFroM2UV-DobgVkKis2LGv5EyEU>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] 0-RTT, server Application Data, and client Finished
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: <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: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:09:15 -0000

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 05:36:22PM +0000, David Benjamin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:44 PM Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 07:28:47PM +0000, David Benjamin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:32 PM Martin Thomson <
> > martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> >
> > I don't think the two situations have the same problems:
> > - "Server 0-RTT" has _recipient_ identity change.
> > - "Dynamic reauth" has _sender_ identity change.
> >
> > You have more concrete examples of things going wrong with "server
> > 0-RTT"? Because I have major problems coming up with troublesome
> > cases.
> 
> 
> The client also has some 0-RTT data which, in the server 0-RTT case, the
> server reports was accepted and processed. That all is associated with the
> first identity rather than the second. So I believe we have sender identity
> change in both cases.

The 0-RTT being sent under different identity than the application data
does involve sending identity change, but what does it have to do with
"server 0-RTT"? The client could do that (and run into trouble with
badly designed protocols) without "server 0-RTT".


-Ilari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email