Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] clarify that HANDSHAKE_DONE, NEW_TOKEN, PATH_RESPONSE, RCID frames MUST NOT appear in 0-RTT (#3431)

From: Kazuho Oku <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 01:12:49 -0800

closes #3430.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3431

-- Commit Summary --

  * clarify that HANDSHAKE_DONE, NEW_TOKEN, PATH_RESPONSE, RCID frames MUST NOT be sent in 0-RTT

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-tls.md (8)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3431.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3431.diff

-- 
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/3431

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 01:27:55 -0800

marten-seemann commented on this pull request.

-Note that it is not possible to send the following frames in 0-RTT for various
-reasons: ACK, CRYPTO, HANDSHAKE_DONE, NEW_TOKEN, PATH_RESPONSE, and

Where did ACK go?

-- 
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/3431#pullrequestreview-354303426

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 01:28:14 -0800

And CRYPTO.

-- 
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/3431#discussion_r375722806

---

From: Kazuho Oku <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 01:39:19 -0800

kazuho commented on this pull request.

ACK and CRYPTO are already explicitly called out. See the text above.

-- 
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/3431#discussion_r375728572

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 02:20:41 -0800

The original text was correct.  These were not prohibited, they were impossible.

-- 
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/3431#issuecomment-582833804

---

From: Kazuho Oku <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 02:27:48 -0800

@martinthomson If that is the case, I think we need to change table 3 of the transport draft, it currently states HANDSHAKE_DONE can appear only in an 1-RTT packet.

-- 
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/3431#issuecomment-582836802

---

From: Kazuho Oku <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 02:41:42 -0800

Yeah I notice that [table 3](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#table-3) marks frames that can only be sent by a server<sup>1</sup> as `___1`, even though the TLS draft says they are not forbidden in 0-RTT. IMO that's confusing, but I think I can live with status quo.

1: NEW_TOKEN, HANDSHAKE_DONE

-- 
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/3431#issuecomment-582842780

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:26:41 -0800

I still think that we have an issue with Retire Connection ID. The current spec allows to send "Retire Connection ID 0" in a 0 RTT packet if the 0-RTT packet is sent to the Initial CID. It is different from CID #0, so that meets the text in 5.1.2 -- but that would cause the handshake to fail. I would like to treat any such RCID as a protocol violation.

-- 
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/3431#issuecomment-589292220