Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Restructure both three things (#4693)

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 13:25:39 -0800

Fixes #4486.  The three points are wordy enough it might be worth making this a bulleted list, however.  Thoughts?
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4693

-- Commit Summary --

  * Restructure both three things

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-tls.md (13)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4693.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4693.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/4693

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 15:59:39 -0800

@martinthomson approved this pull request.

It's really tempting to note that you can just lose packets containing CRYPTO frames, which will never get acknowledged.  More generally, loss or spurious retransmissions would result in this text being technically incorrect.    Should this talk about the data contained in CRYPTO frames instead?

Other than that, I really like the phrasing.

-- 
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/4693#pullrequestreview-563913933

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 18:48:55 -0800

@marten-seemann commented on this pull request.

> @@ -836,12 +836,13 @@ encryption level as the packet being acknowledged.  Thus, it is possible that
 keys for a lower encryption level are needed for a short time after keys for a
 newer encryption level are available.
 
-An endpoint cannot discard keys for a given encryption level unless it has both
-received and acknowledged all CRYPTO frames for that encryption level and when
-all CRYPTO frames for that encryption level have been acknowledged by its peer.
-However, this does not guarantee that no further packets will need to be
-received or sent at that encryption level because a peer might not have received
-all the acknowledgments necessary to reach the same state.
+An endpoint cannot discard keys for a given encryption level unless it has
+received all CRYPTO frames for that encryption level, acknowledged the packets
+containing those frames, and received acknowledgements for packets containing
+all CRYPTO frames sent for that encryption level. However, this does not

Is that so? I could receive HANDSHAKE_DONE without having received all ACKs for Handshake packets, right?

-- 
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/4693#pullrequestreview-563969686

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 19:09:08 -0800

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.

In that case, yes.  And I guess we also have other shortcuts (you don't need Initial ACKs to discard Initial keys as a client or server).

-- 
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/4693#discussion_r553716554

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:35:32 -0800

@martinthomson pushed 1 commit.

12be9bbd39852597aedaee41fc178fe4c977609c  A more robust definition of key discard

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4693/files/76f515cb37f116f1b1c5f496d5b42d66e46fe2f8..12be9bbd39852597aedaee41fc178fe4c977609c

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:56:04 -0800

@janaiyengar approved this pull request.

With @martinthomson's fixes, this is good.

-- 
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/4693#pullrequestreview-564982408

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:57:47 -0800

Merged #4693 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/4693#event-4188770301