Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] RPC text changes for -tls (#4875)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 00:49:00 -0700

This isn&#39;t 100% faithful.  I&#39;ve made some extremely minor edits along with this (s/may/can in one place).

Most of this is just transcribing the addition or removal of punctuation (commas and hyphens for the most part).  The RPC caught one bad section reference.

This doesn&#39;t fix references, but it should suffice for now; we need to do a pass on references separately.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4875

-- Commit Summary --

  * First set of RPC edits for TLS
  * RPC text changes for -tls

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-tls.md (284)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4875.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4875.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/4875

---

From: Nick Banks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:31:22 -0700

@nibanks approved this pull request.

Minor comment, but generally LGTM.

> -Application Data may appear only in the Early Data and Application Data
-levels. Handshake and Alert messages may appear in any level.
+Application Data can only appear in the early data and Application Data
+levels. Handshake and alert messages may appear in any level.

1. Why is `Application Data` capitalized, but not `Early Data`? I don't personally care either way, but it seems inconsistent.
2. On the `may appear` to `can only appear` change, I personally preferred the old text. A QUIC implementation could theoretically (and incorrectly) send a `STREAM` frame in an Initial or Handshake packet, but it's not allowed. So I like `may` because it indicates it's not allowed. `can` makes it sound like it's not even possible.

Just my two cents.

-- 
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/4875#pullrequestreview-647123353

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:42:22 -0700

@seanturner commented on this pull request.

> @@ -2187,7 +2192,7 @@ c300000001088394c8f03e5157080000449e00000002
 
 Protecting the payload produces output that is sampled for header protection.
 Because the header uses a 4-byte packet number encoding, the first 16 bytes of
-the protected payload is sampled, then applied to the header:
+the protected payload is sampled and then applied to the header:

not sure, but is an "as follows" needed at the end of the sentence?

-- 
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/4875#pullrequestreview-647449908

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:48:20 -0700

Not sure this is the place to bring it up, but the quic_transport_parameters in s8.2 is a one code block that is not either proceed by an ".. follows" or referenced. Should we add a reference to it?

-- 
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/4875#issuecomment-828731601

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:17:52 -0700

@martinthomson pushed 3 commits.

48e7ff8e80d15e0f6431cb9c71eabf25508cc069  Use lowercase for Application Data
401dc24c5bfbc9048333ccf5b8cef96a935e1f87  Use inclusive language
127e1049848b9f54b6f3c84beb18882b3ff94d1c  as follows

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4875/files/9dc9834ac1867c4d1c746747ac6e40be7954bbbd..127e1049848b9f54b6f3c84beb18882b3ff94d1c

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:18:22 -0700

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.

I agree.  I've changed to use lowercase in a few more places (basically everywhere that is not a diagram).

Sure.  There are a few others adjacent, but I think that it should be clear.

-- 
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/4875#discussion_r622628383

---

From: Nick Banks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:23:28 -0700

-- 
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/4875#pullrequestreview-647715583

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 18:22:09 -0700

@martinthomson pushed 1 commit.

0db7cd03ac281c5f30df510425115423fae90943  Add sourcecode labels as necessary

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4875/files/127e1049848b9f54b6f3c84beb18882b3ff94d1c..0db7cd03ac281c5f30df510425115423fae90943

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 19:21:50 -0700

@martinthomson pushed 7 commits.

ce7997126fc187d00cb0c0b34e11bfe476ffd4a9  Use <aside> for notes
3784d739213e970d34e1f69d66849a6ec7d13b84  Merge branch 'tls-aside' into rpc-tls
139fdc48e56bbef4f28e90ce4399d10f5d25acc4  Reword packet protection sampling allowance text
f3a644d2993ef419d9117f231d8c1cb824a35d5f  reword key randomization rationale
1890c7301be608dfab406ee96434cd624107be04  Add expanded CCM-ANALAYSIS reference
8710f3d867f36700cd9b47be7877205863e5cdb7  Add markdown=block to aside elements
6937fd08e476927ae4dea31dc42677b98240c4fc  Full reference for NAN

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4875/files/0db7cd03ac281c5f30df510425115423fae90943..6937fd08e476927ae4dea31dc42677b98240c4fc

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 00:37:13 -0700

@martinthomson pushed 2 commits.

ea0eed4fe66ba9a55cd44f85b9692bba44d8408b  Build the XML for the table manually
73ad59a94420db13705cfbca6ca717e29aba1800  Missed GCM-MU

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4875/files/6937fd08e476927ae4dea31dc42677b98240c4fc..73ad59a94420db13705cfbca6ca717e29aba1800

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:25:46 -0700

@MikeBishop approved this pull request.

The table change is a bit painful, but lacking a way to make kramdown produce 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/4875#pullrequestreview-648570381

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:56:16 -0700

a67dd5d2d9abf71079bb2abc69a5b6a92160de0e  Remove redundant <t> elements

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4875/files/73ad59a94420db13705cfbca6ca717e29aba1800..a67dd5d2d9abf71079bb2abc69a5b6a92160de0e

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 18:03:06 -0700

@janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

A couple of notes.

> @@ -986,9 +1051,10 @@ from the Destination Connection ID field from the client's first Initial
 packet.
 
 This secret is determined by using HKDF-Extract (see {{Section 2.2 of HKDF}})
-with a salt of 0x38762cf7f55934b34d179ae6a4c80cadccbb7f0a and a IKM of the
-Destination Connection ID field. This produces an intermediate pseudorandom key
-(PRK) that is used to derive two separate secrets for sending and receiving.
+with a salt of 0x38762cf7f55934b34d179ae6a4c80cadccbb7f0a and the input keying

```suggestion
with a salt of 0x38762cf7f55934b34d179ae6a4c80cadccbb7f0a and an input keying
```

> @@ -1613,10 +1677,10 @@ key update, but has not updated keys in response.
 
 Endpoints responding to an apparent key update MUST NOT generate a timing
 side-channel signal that might indicate that the Key Phase bit was invalid (see
-{{header-protect-analysis}}).  Endpoints can use dummy packet protection keys in
-place of discarded keys when key updates are not yet permitted.  Using dummy
-keys will generate no variation in the timing signal produced by attempting to
-remove packet protection, and results in all packets with an invalid Key Phase
+{{hp-side-channel}}).  Endpoints can use randomized packet protection keys in

This doesn't quite seem right. How about "bogus", "arbitrary", "fake"?

-- 
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/4875#pullrequestreview-649699905