Hi Igor,

You are right, QUIC TLS spec maps TLS1.3  'early_data' field in the 
"initial_max_data" transport parameter.
I don't know the motivation. It sounds good to move transport parameters out of 
the TLS NewSessionTicket.

Regards
Emile

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Lubashev, Igor [mailto:[email protected]] 
Envoyé : mardi 9 juillet 2019 19:43
À : Kuhn Nicolas; [email protected]; IETF QUIC WG; '[email protected]'
Cc : '[email protected]'; STEPHAN Emile TGI/OLN
Objet : RE: Updates on the "Transport parameters for 0-RTT connections" draft

Nico, thanks for caring about clients behind high-latency links.

> The NewSessionTicket carries an additional field named 'early_data'
> that indicates to the client the maximum size of application data to
> insert in the 0-RTT message.

I see that draft-ietf-quic-tls requires use of initial_max_data instead and 
required "early_data" to carry no information.  See section 4.5 "Enabling 
0-RTT".  Is there an advantage to use one vs the other? 


> BDP_metadata

All these parameters the client can calculate itself. You mention that the 
clients may actually reject BDP_metadata, if its contents seem suspect to it. 
So is this structure useful because some clients will be able to make use of 
these fields on a subsequent 0-RTT connection but would not care to implement 
the needed measurements themselves? Or is there some other reason?

Best wishes,

- Igor

-----------------------

From: Kuhn Nicolas <[email protected]> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:47 AM
Subject: Updates on the "Transport parameters for 0-RTT connections" draft

Dear all, 

Following the different feedbacks on this draft, we have proposed an updated 
version on the "Transport parameters for 0-RTT connections". 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuhn-quic-0rtt-bdp/

The draft proposes a solution where path characteristics are shared between the 
peers to improve the ingress traffic for 0-RTT connections.

The difference with version 01 are mainly based on the received feedback.
In short, we now a BDP_metadata structure so that various path parameters can 
be exposed to the client (MTU, RTT, bandwidth, loss-rate).
We have also added a section to discuss what happens when BDP is used 
incorrectly.

Let us know if we have any views or interest in this proposal. 

Cheers,

Nico for the authors


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Reply via email to