draft-ietf-quic-tls-25.txt   draft-ietf-quic-tls-latest.txt 
QUIC Working Group M. Thomson, Ed. QUIC Working Group M. Thomson, Ed.
Internet-Draft Mozilla Internet-Draft Mozilla
Intended status: Standards Track S. Turner, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track S. Turner, Ed.
Expires: July 25, 2020 sn3rd Expires: July 26, 2020 sn3rd
January 22, 2020 January 23, 2020
Using TLS to Secure QUIC Using TLS to Secure QUIC
draft-ietf-quic-tls-25 draft-ietf-quic-tls-latest
Abstract Abstract
This document describes how Transport Layer Security (TLS) is used to This document describes how Transport Layer Security (TLS) is used to
secure QUIC. secure QUIC.
Note to Readers Note to Readers
Discussion of this draft takes place on the QUIC working group Discussion of this draft takes place on the QUIC working group
mailing list (quic@ietf.org), which is archived at mailing list (quic@ietf.org), which is archived at
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 25, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 26, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 9, line 23 skipping to change at page 9, line 23
MUST only be sent in packets at the 1-RTT encryption level. MUST only be sent in packets at the 1-RTT encryption level.
o ACK frames MAY appear in packets of any encryption level other o ACK frames MAY appear in packets of any encryption level other
than 0-RTT, but can only acknowledge packets which appeared in than 0-RTT, but can only acknowledge packets which appeared in
that packet number space. that packet number space.
o All other frame types MUST only be sent in the 0-RTT and 1-RTT o All other frame types MUST only be sent in the 0-RTT and 1-RTT
levels. levels.
Note that it is not possible to send the following frames in 0-RTT Note that it is not possible to send the following frames in 0-RTT
for various reasons: ACK, CRYPTO, NEW_TOKEN, PATH_RESPONSE, and for various reasons: ACK, CRYPTO, HANDSHAKE_DONE, NEW_TOKEN,
RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID. PATH_RESPONSE, and RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID.
Because packets could be reordered on the wire, QUIC uses the packet Because packets could be reordered on the wire, QUIC uses the packet
type to indicate which level a given packet was encrypted under, as type to indicate which level a given packet was encrypted under, as
shown in Table 1. When multiple packets of different encryption shown in Table 1. When multiple packets of different encryption
levels need to be sent, endpoints SHOULD use coalesced packets to levels need to be sent, endpoints SHOULD use coalesced packets to
send them in the same UDP datagram. send them in the same UDP datagram.
+---------------------+------------------+-----------+ +---------------------+------------------+-----------+
| Packet Type | Encryption Level | PN Space | | Packet Type | Encryption Level | PN Space |
+---------------------+------------------+-----------+ +---------------------+------------------+-----------+
skipping to change at page 42, line 11 skipping to change at page 42, line 11
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301, Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>. July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.
[CHACHA] Nir, Y. and A. Langley, "ChaCha20 and Poly1305 for IETF [CHACHA] Nir, Y. and A. Langley, "ChaCha20 and Poly1305 for IETF
Protocols", RFC 8439, DOI 10.17487/RFC8439, June 2018, Protocols", RFC 8439, DOI 10.17487/RFC8439, June 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8439>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8439>.
[QUIC-RECOVERY] [QUIC-RECOVERY]
Iyengar, J., Ed. and I. Swett, Ed., "QUIC Loss Detection Iyengar, J., Ed. and I. Swett, Ed., "QUIC Loss Detection
and Congestion Control", draft-ietf-quic-recovery-25 (work and Congestion Control", draft-ietf-quic-recovery-latest
in progress). (work in progress).
[QUIC-TRANSPORT] [QUIC-TRANSPORT]
Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic- Multiplexed and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-
transport-25 (work in progress). transport-latest (work in progress).
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
skipping to change at page 43, line 15 skipping to change at page 43, line 15
[IMC] Katz, J. and Y. Lindell, "Introduction to Modern [IMC] Katz, J. and Y. Lindell, "Introduction to Modern
Cryptography, Second Edition", ISBN 978-1466570269, Cryptography, Second Edition", ISBN 978-1466570269,
November 2014. November 2014.
[NAN] Bellare, M., Ng, R., and B. Tackmann, "Nonces Are Noticed: [NAN] Bellare, M., Ng, R., and B. Tackmann, "Nonces Are Noticed:
AEAD Revisited", Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2019 pp. AEAD Revisited", Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2019 pp.
235-265, DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-26948-7_9, 2019. 235-265, DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-26948-7_9, 2019.
[QUIC-HTTP] [QUIC-HTTP]
Bishop, M., Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3 Bishop, M., Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
(HTTP/3)", draft-ietf-quic-http-25 (work in progress). (HTTP/3)", draft-ietf-quic-http-latest (work in progress).
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 10 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.44jr. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/