Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Create more certainty about 0-RTT transport parameters (#513)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 21:59:54 -0700

Victor raised the issue that there are two potential values for transport parameters if 0-RTT is accepted.

He proposes a different approach:

> Instead of the current negotiation scheme outlined in the draft, I propose that
we adapt a simple scheme similar to what TLS does with cryptographic parameters
and 0-RTT:
>  1) Client sends its vision of server's assumed parameters in the ClientHello,
     and is expected to follow them in 0-RTT packets.
>  2) Server either accepts those parameters, or declines 0-RTT altogether,
     by discarding the 0-RTT data and following up with a full 1-RTT handshake.
>If server accepts 0-RTT, its parameters in the 1-RTT server hello cannot be
more limited than what it accepted from the client.

cc @vasilvv

-- 
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/issues/513

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 22:12:31 -0700

Closed by #512.

-- 
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/issues/513#issuecomment-303000811

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 22:12:31 -0700

Closed #513.

-- 
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/issues/513#event-1091168255