Re: [TLS] Limiting replay time frame of 0-RTT data

Ryan Hamilton <> Mon, 14 March 2016 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682CC12D725 for <>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19p6hhM28dg2 for <>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14F3812D712 for <>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p65so115389867wmp.1 for <>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=xuOuxFEiq58Ou346gywqTfda7hTQCU8E16SSVoU4xUY=; b=nXKkx9xWsok1MFIUb+aN/d2uJfAeoUUdS/xaoRBFq0aorvCCkpxtfnLwfDhlfBhivu JuDhuEUoivByxVeGOmMbjlZ8kaRCJkK4irSA2qVXadXd6sCwonp+TwaBe5ieqRGRunwt UzvQYdCK+fvJCJY60zNQPMBKpTYzRUXy2bqaxmlVe1TtsM9BFhEaW5yKZayMIHdx8Q+B 9ZD+tOp3k/84UBOAZfCNKm1olNqmEzWR5PLMf4lklMEgvIhneSwLeWVVzAFVhrXLcXLN sQ8vVjj2UDGl4j2R36a4INB+0BI6NP1WMbFzn1Ogbn/NMq4mj0/Tzlk54UyqGTh/Ti/Y UoMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=xuOuxFEiq58Ou346gywqTfda7hTQCU8E16SSVoU4xUY=; b=U+KbasE7F2mH1d+IDWCp16Z5kpp/t5hixQGfWwm/1wggkH4P4VK2wkQyL/DXQKdzUA z62DFtLJiCXynkLYdXcwJ78+szLuAt2pnKNoldant44pjLZrKBPtvjVdhl0IEhOBH9lW VGEASbvp3ETqnMAxYFIZMr4PWVebIzPhHFTcL2uL+FK4XwzLNgTspe6oUdCHQpbct8jb ZxbYIBU/uZagQmk4P3f6y1lsPP6JERpixg50iE7mja2EKr68x1jzUUoYctxIs3HwWBOD e5aTrF+OPV4OJmQlCUo93GrT4gBus1zQUncOhHodw9By6pACzi3w4iSC7+nUdT9M414Z hz6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLeYCrm844GWVS6w6F2A+9xl2xHLRKKlguLf8D5c2zbasrrvclPinzVcMwfgCqSQayrJPbNfbAnt6k1zSw0
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id c7mr20894284wmf.46.1457982916328; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:15:16 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Ryan Hamilton <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11452e4cd14521052e0719c7
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Karthikeyan Bhargavan <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Limiting replay time frame of 0-RTT data
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:15:20 -0000

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Jeffrey Walton <> wrote:

> 0-RTT seems to be a solution looking for a problem.

​Google has been using 0-RTT as part of the QUIC transport for quite a
while now. In April of last year, we posted about the performance benefits
we're seeing from QUIC
Among other things, that post said:

Even on a well-optimized site like Google Search, where connections are
often pre-established, we still see a 3% improvement in mean page load time
with QUIC.

>From the browser side of things, 0-RTT is a solution to a very real
problem. We are excited about TLS 1.3 supporting 0-RTT (or 0-RTT
resumption) and converting QUIC to use the TLS 1.3 handshake as a result.