Change:
6.6. <del> Key updates MUST be initiated before usage limits on packet protection keys are exceeded.  For the cipher suites mentioned in this document, the limits in Section 5.5 of TLS13 apply.  TLS13 does not specify a limit for AEAD_AES_128_CCM, but the analysis in ccm- bounds shows that a limit of 2^23 packets can be used to obtain the same confidentiality protection as the limits specified in TLS. </del> <ins> This document sets usage limits for AEAD algorithms to ensure that overuse does not give an adversary a disproportionate advantage in attacking the confidentiality and integrity of communications when using QUIC. </ins> The usage limits defined in TLS 1.3 exist for protection against attacks on confidentiality and apply to successful applications of

Discussion:
This clarifies the TLS interface by explaining that TLS only generates outputs (handshake bytes or keying material) in response to inputs. Previously, the only inputs we acknowledged were the handshake bytes, but this recognizes two more: the signal from the client to start handshaking, and - for async validation - a signal that a certificate is OK or not.
Weren't we going to say that the traffic keys might get generated asynchronously in ? I wonder how this PR interacts with . I see this PR calling out three types of events (i.e. generation of CH, input of handshake bytes, completion of certificate validation) as the "inputs," then claim that TLS provides the keys "synchronously" in relation to such events. That works as a definition, but I am not sure if it is easy to comprehend. I think my preference would be to talk about (a)synchronicity from the viewpoint of a transport. It would be easier to say that TLS might provide keys "asynchronously" from what the transport provides as input, then point out that key generation (possibly in relation to certificate verification) might take some time.
To answer both questions, I am planning on integrating the text from as well. That would cover the case where the TLS stack has to disappear for some time before it produces new outputs, however that manifests.
NAME NAME I've rebased this based on the changes in . Would you mind checking my work?
The label should be instead of .
Thanks NAME fixed.
The process for interacting with TLS does not acknowledge the possibility that progress in the handshake might depend on inputs other than CRYPTO frames. In particular, endpoints might need to perform additional checking to decide that the TLS handshake is complete. The most important example being the processing that occurs for certificate validation. This is often an asynchronous process, with OCSP and other muck, so recognizing that explicitly in the draft is worthwhile. This might help tease out one of the causes of the problem discussed in , but it doesn't lead to a solution.
Q: Does this indicate that the TLS changes involved in may be editorial? I'd like to focus on the transport and recovery changes to deal with the issue, and it'd be nice if the tls changes were separate from my perspective.
Why isn't adequate for this? Specifically, isn't it enough to change the stance from synchronous to asynchronous?

I would prefer to explain how certificate validation can take time and block availability of keys.
Should this become proposal-ready?
NAME : This is an editorial issue, so no.
Thanks looks great!