On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 01:10:29PM -0700, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com> > wrote: > > > > * In order to fully reason about when that message may later get > > received, > > > there needs to be an agreed upon time-cap for 0-RTT receipt. Agreed by > > all > > > potential middle-boxes in the pipe that may be using 0-RTT. > > > > Isn't that potentially multi-party problem if middleboxes are involved? > > > > Yes; but if we can agree on a hard maximum time-window for the 0RTT > section, and all of the parties agree, it's possible for a careful client > to negotiate its way around it. Even if it's 10 seconds, this still has > some value I think.
I meant what prevents the (say 10 second) windows from stacking up into (say 20 second windows) if 0-RTT is used on multiple hops (client- middlebox and middlebox-server)? One can not assume that the client has knowledge of any middlebox on the path (e.g. CDNs in HTTP are in general invisible to the client). -Ilari _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
