Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] A small certificate is good (#3825)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2020 21:35:31 -0700

There are a few ways that this can be managed, but it&#39;s worth pointing
out why, and some things that might help.

Closes #3784.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3825

-- Commit Summary --

  * A small certificate is good

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-tls.md (19)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3825.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3825.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/3825

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2020 23:03:24 -0700

@marten-seemann commented on this pull request.

> @@ -651,6 +651,17 @@ verification that the identity of the server is included in a certificate and
 that the certificate is issued by a trusted entity (see for example
 {{?RFC2818}}).
 
+Note:
+
+: Where servers provide certificates for authentication, the size of
+  the certificate chain can consume a large number of bytes.  Controlling the
+  size of certificate chains is critical to performance in QUIC as servers are
+  limited to sending 3 bytes for every byte received prior to validating the
+  client address; see Section 8.1 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}.  The size of a
+  certificate chain can managed by limiting the number of names or extensions;

can be?

> @@ -651,6 +651,17 @@ verification that the identity of the server is included in a certificate and
 that the certificate is issued by a trusted entity (see for example
 {{?RFC2818}}).
 
+Note:
+
+: Where servers provide certificates for authentication, the size of
+  the certificate chain can consume a large number of bytes.  Controlling the
+  size of certificate chains is critical to performance in QUIC as servers are
+  limited to sending 3 bytes for every byte received prior to validating the
+  client address; see Section 8.1 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}.  The size of a
+  certificate chain can managed by limiting the number of names or extensions;
+  using keys with small public key representations, like ECDSA; or, by using

s/or/and/?

> @@ -756,8 +767,8 @@ In TLS over TCP, the HelloRetryRequest feature (see Section 4.1.4 of
 well as for a stateless round-trip check. From the perspective of QUIC, this
 just looks like additional messages carried in Initial packets. Although it is
 in principle possible to use this feature for address verification in QUIC,
-QUIC implementations SHOULD instead use the Retry feature (see Section 8.1 of
-{{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}). HelloRetryRequest is still used to request key shares.
+QUIC implementations SHOULD instead use the Retry feature; see Section 8.1 of

This seems unrelated. Was this supposed to go in #3826?

-- 
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/3825#pullrequestreview-442792032

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2020 23:22:15 -0700

@martinthomson pushed 1 commit.

c7c75414c9f761b5a8875d308938522dd139e565  Fixup grammarz

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3825/files/9e94c00ed2133f30225fd31b4b7ea3ade8a9d702..c7c75414c9f761b5a8875d308938522dd139e565

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2020 23:23:12 -0700

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.

+Note:
+

I think that a logical OR is sufficient here.  Though nothing stops someone from doing more than one, and maybe there are things that mean you need to (like being unwilling to reduce the number of cnames on certificates for $reasons.

-- 
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/3825#discussion_r450005983

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2020 23:32:47 -0700

@marten-seemann 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/3825#pullrequestreview-442804515

---

From: Nick Banks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 08:14:26 -0700

@nibanks 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/3825#pullrequestreview-443169007

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 07:08:20 -0700

@MikeBishop approved this pull request.

> @@ -651,6 +651,18 @@ verification that the identity of the server is included in a certificate and
 
+Note:
+
+: Where servers provide certificates for authentication, the size of
+  the certificate chain can consume a large number of bytes.  Controlling the
+  size of certificate chains is critical to performance in QUIC as servers are
+  limited to sending 3 bytes for every byte received prior to validating the
+  client address; see Section 8.1 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}.  The size of a
+  certificate chain can be managed by limiting the number of names or
+  extensions; using keys with small public key representations, like ECDSA; or,

```suggestion
  extensions; using keys with small public key representations, like ECDSA; or
```

-- 
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/3825#pullrequestreview-445651863

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 17:18:04 -0700

a96ea27ea8e9487b353e8b683bb295b20cf15d7a  --comma

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3825/files/c7c75414c9f761b5a8875d308938522dd139e565..a96ea27ea8e9487b353e8b683bb295b20cf15d7a

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 08:27:10 -0700

@ianswett 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/3825#pullrequestreview-446493765

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 16:58:32 -0700

Merged #3825 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/3825#event-3537548867