Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Describe interaction between QUIC and TLS regarding saved 0-RTT state (#2947)

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:35:55 -0700

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

> @@ -644,6 +647,27 @@ A client MAY attempt to send 0-RTT again if it receives a Retry or Version
 Negotiation packet.  These packets do not signify rejection of 0-RTT.

+## Validating 0-RTT Configuration
+
+When a server receives a ClientHello with the "early_data" extension, it has to
+decide whether to accept or reject early data from the client. Some of this
+decision is made by the TLS stack (e.g., checking that the cipher suite being
+resumed was included in the ClientHello; see Section 4.2.10 of {{!TLS13}}). Even
+when the TLS stack has no reason to reject early data, the QUIC stack or the
+application protocol using QUIC might reject early data because the
+configuration of the transport or application associated with the resumed
+session is not compatible with the server's current configuration.
+
+QUIC requires additional transport state to be associated with a 0-RTT session
+ticket. If stateless session tickets are used, this information must be stored
+in the session ticket. Application protocols that use QUIC might have similar

@nharper : Can you address this comment?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2947#discussion_r332762874

---

From: Nick Harper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:22:17 -0700

nharper commented on this pull request.

Would it work to change "If stateless session tickets are used, this information must be stored in the session ticket." to "If stateless session tickets are used, this information may be stored in the session ticket."?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2947#discussion_r332774718

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:58:10 -0700

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

That would be fine.  The use of "must", implying "MUST", is a little too strong.

I would probably say that the choice of location (NEW_TOKEN vs NST) is an implementation-dependent one.  Implementations might want to use NST as that has better fate-sharing and they might not want to concern themselves with path validation for 0-RTT (or to allow a limited amount of 0-RTT in the case the token is bad).  Or, they could insist on a token and strong path validation, so moving the larger state necessary for 0-RTT into the token makes more sense.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2947#discussion_r333782081

---

From: Nick Harper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:17:26 -0700

@nharper pushed 1 commit.

635ab6cee20af55c617202c8301b5b5179c31744  Reword sentence about storing state in session ticket

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2947/files/c09d599bade53a8faea33a264c21d1a57de2d179..635ab6cee20af55c617202c8301b5b5179c31744

---

From: Nick Harper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:22:37 -0700

The intention of that sentence was to say that most likely you're using stateless tickets and storing this additional state in the ticket, so I reworded it to say that.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2947#discussion_r334160469

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 11:12:11 -0700

MikeBishop approved this pull request.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2947#pullrequestreview-301463350

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 09:57:57 -0700

Merged #2947 into master.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2947#event-2714745773