jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
extension.  It MUST NOT save the "retry_config" value in EncryptedExtensions. <del> [[OPEN ISSUE: Depending on what we do for issue#450, it may be appropriate to change the client behavior if the HRR extension is present.]] </del> Offering a GREASE extension is not considered offering an encrypted ClientHello for purposes of requirements in real-ech.  In particular, the client MAY offer to resume sessions established without ECH.

Related discussion:
text: But that is just how it is. We get to choose between that leakage and a known large amount of bustage.
This solution admits a straightforward, active distinguisher: just intercept CH1, respond with a fake HRR, and look at CH2. It's true that we "give up" on making HRR not stick out in . However, one of the design goals there is to prevent active attacks that trigger the HRR code path when it otherwise would not have happened. What we give up on is ensuring "don't stick out" when HRR is inevitable for the given client and server.
Ah, are you saying that this conflicts with (and thus would have to be removed if is merged)?
I believe resolves the same "OPEN ISSUE", yes.
I just noticed this as I was pondering our various HRR issues. RFC8446, section 4.1.2 says: URL The "and present in the HelloRetryRequest" portion is fun. In RFC8446 as written, we're not allowed to change the extension on the second ClientHello unless the server sent in HelloRetryRequest, which it doesn't. With the protocol as-is, it seems we'll at least need some text to deal with the contradiction. The impact is practice is thankfully limited. If the servers does not enforce consistency between the two ClientHellos, it doesn't matter. (They're not required to, but they're not explicitly forbidden from it either, and a stateless server may need to enforce some minimum consistency to avoid getting into a broken state.) If a server does, ECH's behavior on HRR will break it. Such a server is supposed to handshake with ClientHelloOuter, so it just affects the retry flow. That's maybe okay, but mildly annoying. Administrators using server software that checks need to know to first upgrade to a version that doesn't check before trying to deploy ECH. We can also add an ECH extension to HRR. Then, on ECH-reject + HRR, the server perhaps wouldn't send the extension and the client would be required to replay the extension. This is a waste in many ways, but would work. This would break don't stick out, but some threat models, don't stick out with HRR is hopeless anyway.
Code change:
extension.  It MUST NOT save the "retry_config" value in EncryptedExtensions. <del> [[OPEN ISSUE: Depending on what we do for issue#450, it may be appropriate to change the client behavior if the HRR extension is present.]] </del> Offering a GREASE extension is not considered offering an encrypted ClientHello for purposes of requirements in real-ech.  In particular, the client MAY offer to resume sessions established without ECH.

Related discussion:
text: (See URL) It would also be weirdly asymmetric between ECH and SH. That said, this constraint is also pretty obnoxious. For instance, currently adds a new padding extension codepoint, because the old one isn't defined for other messages. However, the RFC8446 allowance only works for the existing padding code point, so you don't want to send any other code points in ClientHello, lest the server force you to keep it unchanged in ClientHello2. So maybe we should confirm no servers did the fully strict check and undo that constraint? (Although, for , I personally favor the padding message strategy anyway.)
NAME points out the Go implementation does check CH1 and CH2 consistency. Fortunately, it only checks known extensions, so it's still compatible with the ECH draft. URL Checking only know extensions is basically saying we should strike "and present in the HelloRetryRequest" in rfc8446bis and make sure everyone knows not to check this.
I don't think we can just strike this text because the point of that text was that you couldn't like change your KeyShares if the HRR didn't tell you to. But I agree we can sharpen this in some sensible way.
I figured that case was covered by "defined in the future", which I'm not proposing we delete. keyshare isn't defined in the future, so it falls under existing rules. The existing rules (bullet points over that one) only let you change keyshare "[i]f a "key_share" extension was supplied in the HelloRetryRequest". But perhaps that's a little roundabout. The rules I'm thinking of are (changes emphasized): Each extension gets to define how it reacts to HRR. It typically is sensitive the corresponding HRR extension, but doesn't have to be. RFC8446(bis) defines the rules for all existing extensions. Future extensions define their own rules. (And probably if they don't say anything, we assume they don't get to change.) As a server, you can make assumptions based on the rules for extensions you know about. You have to tolerate random changes in extensions you don't know about, because you don't know their rules.* I'm running a probe on a bunch of servers to see how they react to changes in cipher suites, curves, and a random extension.
Code change:
extension.  It MUST NOT save the "retry_config" value in EncryptedExtensions. <del> [[OPEN ISSUE: Depending on what we do for issue#450, it may be appropriate to change the client behavior if the HRR extension is present.]] </del> Offering a GREASE extension is not considered offering an encrypted ClientHello for purposes of requirements in real-ech.  In particular, the client MAY offer to resume sessions established without ECH.

Related discussion:
text: It seems most don't notice. Some (I'm guessing Go) notice cipher suites and curves. None notice a random extension. That suggests the change will be compatible.
I spoke too soon. LibreSSL breaks if you change an extension they don't recognize. :-(
So draft-09 isn't tied up with this, I've uploaded URL as a bandaid for the potential compatibility issue. (I say potential because it's only a problem if the server checks unknown extensions and has different enough key share preferences from the client that it needs HRR. HRR is pretty rare, so it may not actually be an issue. For Chrome, at least, I don't think the particular servers I found actually trigger HRR. But it is still a risk for clients or servers with different configurations.)
Code change:
clients that they are behind a captive-portal enforcement device and how to contact an API for more information. <ins> This document replaces RFC 7710 RFC7710. </ins> 1.1. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",

Related discussion:
text: Note that I do need you both to confirm that you have fulfilled IPR obligations.
Thank you!
Code change:
renders 5-tuple based filtering insufficient and requires more state to be maintained by DDoS defense systems.  For the common case of NAT rebinding, DDoS defense systems can detect a change in the client's <del> endpoint address by linking flows based on the first 8 bytes of the server's connection IDs, provided the server is using at least 8- bytes-long connection IDs.  QUIC's linkability resistance ensures that a deliberate connection migration is accompanied by a change in the connection ID and necessitates that connection ID-aware DDoS defense system must have the same information about connection IDs as the load balancer I-D.ietf-quic-load-balancers.  This may be complicated where mitigation and load balancing environments are logically separate. </del> <ins> endpoint address by linking flows based on the server's connection IDs.  QUIC's linkability resistance ensures that a deliberate connection migration is accompanied by a change in the connection ID. </ins> It is questionable whether connection migrations must be supported during a DDoS attack.  If the connection migration is not visible to

Related discussion:
text: The point is when a DDoS attack is on-going you want to make sure that on-going connections keep running while new connections are handled more carefully. So you have to be flow aware. However, maybe it's acceptable if connectivity breaks during a DDoS when the 5 tuple changes...? Otherwise you would need to be CID aware.
This PR removes the problems I cited in the issue. Ship it. I wonder if we should hit the point in the last sentence a little harder. If you want to support connection migration, there's nothing you can do in this space except the Retry Service stuff in QUIC-LB, is there?
Code change:
is represented as an encoded UncompressedPointRepresentation struct, as defined in RFC8446. <ins> 5.1.2. The signature algorithm specified in the ciphersuite is the mandatory algorithm to be used for signatures in FramedContentAuthData and the tree signatures.  It MUST be the same as the signature algorithm specified in the credentials in the leaves of the tree (including the leaf node information in KeyPackages used to add new members). </ins> The signatures used in this document are encoded as specified in RFC8446.  In particular, ECDSA signatures are DER-encoded and EdDSA signatures are defined as the concatenation of "r" and "s" as

Related discussion:
text: As discussed in the virtual interim 2022-12-16, it is possible that extensions might be tempted to re-use HPKE public keys created for MLS. Even within MLS, we have two different public-key encryption cases, Welcome and Commit (though these currently use different keys). Currently, for Commit encryption, the HPKE parameter is set to the group context. The content of is actually undefined for Welcome encryption (!) This PR makes the following changes: Define general and functions that populte the HPKE parameter with an encoded label and context Apply these to Commit and Welcome encryption: Commit: label="UpdatePathNode", context= Welcome: label="Welcome", context= Add an IANA registry of public-key encryption labels (as for signing) There is also a bit of reorganization of the Ciphersuites section to split it into three subsections.
Note that any previous analysis of MLS had to take this particular reuse into account. This can't be the case for any arbitrary extensions reusing the key. So if MLS uses an extension that reuses the key, none of the existing analysis applies, which is a much bigger issue. This said, this reuse did decrease security -- it weakened FS in that a joiner had to hold on to their HPKE leaf key, which also allowed to decrypt the init secret from the welcome message, long after joining.
I think this captures what we discussed during the interim. FWIW, I'm wondering if we didn't have a domain separation issue in the past when we only had one HPKE public key in KeyPackages and used it for both the Welcome subsequently for UpdatePath as well. Either way, I think this is a good defense-in-depth mechanism.
Code change:
implementation should store the properties in storage common to all protocols, and notify all protocol instances in the Protocol Stack whenever the properties have been modified by the application.  For <del> protocol-specfic properties, such as the User Timeout that applies to TCP, the Transport Services implementation only needs to update the relevant protocol instance. </del> <ins> Protocol-specific Properties, such as the User Timeout that applies to TCP, the Transport Services implementation only needs to update the relevant protocol instance. </ins> If an error is encountered in setting a property (for example, if the application tries to set a TCP-specific property on a Connection that

Related discussion:
text: We don't have "Protocol Properties" - two occurrences in -interface should really refer to "protocol-specific Properties", and two occurrences in -impl should really refer to properties.
URL Are Protocol Specific Properties and Protocol Properties same or different? Also note that we are first time defining the Protocol Properties in the interface document ( described along with Connection Properties) and not introduced in the architecture document. I think we should be clear about what we are defining where and describing where. I would suggest use of cross reference rather describing everything again and again, which might create confusion and inconsistency.
Oh, this seems like a mistake (great catch, thanks!) - "Protocol Properties" don't exist, I think we only have "protocol-specific Properties".
I caught this when reading the implementation doc. So it should be fixed there as well.
Code change:
Endpoints MUST NOT send this extension in a TLS connection that does not use QUIC (such as the use of TLS with TCP defined in TLS13).  A <del> fatal unsupported_extension alert MUST be sent if this extension is received when the transport is not QUIC. </del> <ins> fatal unsupported_extension alert MUST be sent by an implementation that supports this extension if the extension is received when the transport is not QUIC. </ins> 8.3.

Related discussion:
text: No point in levying requirements on them.
Section 8.2 says: However, this directly contradicts TLS 1.3 URL, which says: In order to say this, this document would need to Update 8446, and even then it doesn't make sense because the presumptive point of this rule is to detect attempts to negotiate QUIC with non-QUIC TLS endpoints, which don't need to conform to this RFC (and may predate it).
I don't think QUIC can tell anyone what do with regard to any protocol that is not QUIC. And since QUIC v1 carries its own TLS record wrapping it makes even less sense.
I agree with the problem statement, however I wonder if this opens a session ticket obtained using TLS13-over-TCP to be used in QUIC. Is that what we want?
NAME why would this text have an impact on that? Couldn't I negotiate TLS 1.3 over TCP w/o extension and then send the resume over QUIC w/ extension?
The point here is to insist on the alert if the extension is understood. This wasn't intended to supersede 8446.
NAME My bad. I was confused with the earlier versions of the QUIC-TLS draft that had the transport_parameters extension in the session tickets.
NAME I think you could phrase that, but is it useful, given that we can't rely on it?
Probably not. I'm OK with culling the text.
This might not be possible if a cloud load balancer only forwards QUIC with TLS and terminates TLS otherwise.
Code change:
Signature = I2OSP(R, n) | I2OSP(S, n) where n = ceiling(key_length / 8) <del> 9.2.1. </del> <ins> 9.1.1. </ins> On of the issues that needs to be discussed is substitution attacks. There are two different things that can potentially be substituted in

Related discussion:
text: MTI Algorithm requirements Expand RSASSA-PSS section Correct one coordinate EC for endian Hint to get binary versions of examples Correct kid to binary in the examples (except for static public key one).
Code change:
"key_share", "pre_shared_key", "psk_key_exchange_modes", "early_data", "cookie", "supported_versions", "certificate_authorities", "oid_filters", "post_handshake_auth", <del> and "signature_algorithms_certs", extensions with the values </del> <ins> and "signature_algorithms_cert", extensions with the values </ins> defined in this document and the Recommended value of "Yes". IANA [SHALL update/has updated] this registry to include a "TLS

Related discussion:
text: the type is called signaturealgorithmscert (singular) everywhere, not signaturealgorithmscerts (plural)
Code change:
and might be required to be a quoted-string if the base64url string includes "=" characters.  This challenge value MUST be unique for every 401 HTTP response to prevent replay attacks. <del> This attribute is required for all challenges. </del> <ins> This parameter is required for all challenges. </ins> "token-key", which contains a base64url encoding of the public key for use with the issuance protocol indicated by the challenge.

Related discussion:
text: The document refers to authentication scheme attributes throughout; the term from HTTP is 'parameters'. Also, both the challenge and credentials definitions should say what to do with unrecognised parameters.
Code change:
The sending endpoint SHALL write the Code of the original CoAP message into the plaintext of the COSE object (see plaintext).  After that, the sending endpoint writes an Outer Code to the OSCORE <del> message.  The Outer Code SHALL be set to 0.02 (POST) or 0.05 (FETCH) for requests.  For non-Observe requests the client SHALL set the Outer Code to 0.02 (POST).  For responses, the sending endpoint SHALL respond with Outer Code 2.04 (Changed) to 0.02 (POST) requests, and with Outer Code 2.05 (Content) to 0.05 (FETCH) requests.  Using FETCH with Observe allows OSCORE to be compliant with the Observe processing in OSCORE-unaware intermediaries.  The choice of POST and FETCH RFC8132 allows all OSCORE messages to have payload. The receiving endpoint SHALL discard the Outer Code in the OSCORE message and write the Code of the COSE object plaintext (plaintext) into the decrypted CoAP message. </del> <ins> message.  With one exeception (see observe-option-processing) the Outer Code SHALL by default be set to 0.02 (POST) for requests and to 2.04 (Changed) for responses.  The receiving endpoint SHALL discard the Outer Code in the OSCORE message and write the Code of the COSE object plaintext (plaintext) into the decrypted CoAP message. </ins> The other currently defined CoAP Header fields are Unprotected (Class U).  The sending endpoint SHALL write all other header fields of the

Related discussion:
text: This PR should (hopefully) conclude the main rewrite of Observe which was triggered by the security analysis and additional reviews of Observe. It should (hopefully) now be clear what part of the Observe related processing can be omitted in case Observe is not supported or in case intermediaries are not used. A new appendix E is covering the latter case.
Code change:
has received this parameter SHOULD NOT send an HTTP message header that exceeds the indicated size, as the peer will likely refuse to process it.  However, an HTTP message can traverse one or more <del> intermediaries (see Section 3.7 of SEMANTICS) before reaching the origin server.  Because this limit is applied separately by each </del> <ins> intermediaries before reaching the origin server; see Section 3.7 of SEMANTICS.  Because this limit is applied separately by each </ins> implementation which processes the message, messages below this limit are not guaranteed to be accepted.

Related discussion:
text: Fixes several nits from the gen-art review, which basically all come down to defining terms appropriately and/or referencing their definitions. modifies definition of "stream" and "stream error"; pulls in more terms from SEMANTICS references SEMANTICS for definition of fields rewords to avoid the term "hop" and describes intermediation more explicitly rewords to avoid saying "not possible" and copies language from SEMANTICS advising against retries updates reference to definition of CONNECT in SEMANTICS. NAME your review would be appreciated.
In the HTTP genart review, NAME writes:
Yes, CONNECT only supports TCP, and there's no short-term plan to change that. There is separate relevant work such as but I don't think we need to change anything in the draft here - it pretty clearly mentions TCP so I don't see any ambiguity.
This question should be addressed by the definition of CONNECT the spec is referring to. It's worth double-checking the references in that section, though; it points to HTTP11, when I think there should be a definition in SEMANTICS.
In the HTTP genart review, NAME writes:
Presumably a reference into SEMANTICS; I'll look for the right section to point to.
In the HTTP genart review, NAME writes:
In the HTTP genart review, NAME writes:
In the HTTP genart review, NAME writes: "HTTP/3 stream". Perhaps it's worth defining "HTTP/3 stream" explicitly, in analogy to "HTTP/3 connection". Perhaps it's worth defining "message", too (this is only an HTTP concept, correct?). The document should make sure it clearly distinguishes terms and concept of QUIC vs. of HTTP/3 in all cases. In particular, what is the relationship between HTTP/3 frames and QUIC frames? It's important to make their difference and relationship explicit, as the document uses several other terms interchangeably between HTTP/3 and QUIC, like "connection" and perhaps "stream".
A few minor suggestions, but this is a good change.This looks good to me, thanks!
Code change:
provisional value 0xff020000, which might change with each edition of this document. <del> The salt used to derive Initial keys in Sec 5.2 of RFC9001 changes to </del> <ins> The salt used to derive Initial keys in Section 5.2 of QUIC-TLS changes to: </ins> <del> The labels used in RFC9001 to derive packet protection keys (Sec 5.1), header protection keys (Sec 5.4), Retry Integrity Tag keys (Sec 5.8), and key updates (Sec 6.1) change from "quic key" to </del> <ins> The labels used in QUIC-TLS to derive packet protection keys (Section Section 5.1 of QUIC-TLS), header protection keys (Section Section 5.4 of QUIC-TLS), Retry Integrity Tag keys (Section Section 5.8 of QUIC-TLS), and key updates (Section Section 6.1 of QUIC-TLS) change from "quic key" to </ins> "quicv2 key", from "quic iv" to "quicv2 iv", from "quic hp" to "quicv2 hp", and from "quic ku" to "quicv2 ku", to meet the <del> guidance for new versions in Section 9.6 of that document. </del> <ins> guidance for new versions in Section Section 9.6 of QUIC-TLS of that document. </ins> <del> The key and nonce used for the Retry Integrity Tag (Sec 5.8 of RFC9001) change to: </del> <ins> The key and nonce used for the Retry Integrity Tag (Section 5.8 of QUIC-TLS) change to: </ins> 4.

Related discussion:
text: This uses kramdown tricks to make real links for the section references to RFC 9001 and uses a nicer label for those.
Code change:
Regular expression tests can be applied to "string" values only. <del> The value of the first operand ("containable") of a "contain-expr" is compared to every single element of the RHS "container".  In case of a match a selection occurs.  Containment tests -- like comparisons -- are restricted to primitive values.  So even if a structured "containable" value is equal to a certain structured value in "container", no selection is done. The value of the second operand ("container") of a "contain-expr" needs to be resolved to an array.  Otherwise nothing is selected. </del> The following table lists filter expression operators in order of precedence from highest (binds most tightly) to lowest (binds least tightly).

Related discussion:
text: From the meeting at IETF 112 ([1]): Consensus: 'in' won't be used, but it will be easy to add later if there's real demand [1] URL
Good eyes. Thanks!
Yes, we agreed to remove the 'in' operator as some kind of syntactic sugar. thanks
Thanks! I pushed a small commit removing an "in" example.