Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ben Kaduk's TLS Discuss 1 (#4475)

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 18:43:20 -0800

@kaduk said:

> (1) Rather a "discuss-discuss", but we seem to be requiring some changes
> to TLS 1.3 that are arguably out of charter.  In particular, in Section
> 8.3 we see that clients are forbidden from sending EndOfEarlyData and it
> (accordingly) does not appear in the handshake transcript.  The
> reasoning for this is fairly sound; we explicitly index our application
> data streams and any truncation will be filled in as a normal part of
> the recovery process, so the attack that EndOfEarlyData exists to
> prevent instrinsically cannot happen.  However, the only reason we'd be
> required to send it in the first place is if the server sends the
> "early_data" extension in EncryptedExtensions ... and we already have a
> bit of unpleasantness relating to the "early_data" extension, in that we
> have to use a sentinel value for max_early_data_size in NewSessionTicket
> to indicate that the ticket is good for 0-RTT, with the actual maximum
> amount of data allowed indicated elsewhere.  TLS extensions are cheap,
> so a new "quic_early_data" flag extension valid in CH, EE, and NST would
> keep us from conflating TLS and QUIC 0-RTT semantics, thus solving both
> problems at the same time.  On the other hand, that would be requiring
> implementations to churn just for process cleanliness, so we might also
> consider other alternatives, such as finessing the language and/or
> document metadata for how this specification uses TLS 1.3.
> (There are a couple other places in the COMMENT where we might suffer
> from scope creep regarding TLS behavior as well, but I did not mark them
> as DISCUSS since they are not changing existing specified behavior.)

-- 
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/issues/4475

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 19:57:53 -0800

Response provided via email.

-- 
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/issues/4475#issuecomment-755062323

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 21:00:05 -0800

This is probably something we need a consensus call on, even though it's a change only in theory.

-- 
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/issues/4475#issuecomment-758401685

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:58:09 -0800

Closed #4475 via #4689.

-- 
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/issues/4475#event-4208574004

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:58:17 -0800

Returning to an open state as the chairs directed in their plan.

-- 
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/issues/4475#issuecomment-760529376

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:58:17 -0800

Reopened #4475.

-- 
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/issues/4475#event-4208574426