draft-ietf-quic-tls-34.txt   draft-ietf-quic-tls-latest.txt 
QUIC Working Group M. Thomson, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Thomson, Ed.
Internet-Draft Mozilla Request for Comments: 9001 Mozilla
Intended status: Standards Track S. Turner, Ed. Category: Standards Track S. Turner, Ed.
Expires: July 19, 2021 sn3rd ISSN: 2070-1721 sn3rd
January 15, 2021 May 2021
Using TLS to Secure QUIC Using TLS to Secure QUIC
draft-ietf-quic-tls-34
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
Discussion of this draft takes place on the QUIC working group
mailing list (quic@ietf.org), which is archived at
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=quic>.
Working Group information can be found at <https://github.com/
quicwg>; source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
<https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/labels/-tls>.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 19, 2021. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9001.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. TLS Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. TLS Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Carrying TLS Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Carrying TLS Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Interface to TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Interface to TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.1. Handshake Complete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.1. Handshake Complete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2. Handshake Confirmed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.2. Handshake Confirmed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.3. Sending and Receiving Handshake Messages . . . . . . 10 4.1.3. Sending and Receiving Handshake Messages . . . . . . 10
4.1.4. Encryption Level Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1.4. Encryption Level Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.5. TLS Interface Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1.5. TLS Interface Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. TLS Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.2. TLS Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. ClientHello Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3. ClientHello Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Peer Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4. Peer Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.5. Session Resumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.5. Session Resumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.6. 0-RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.6. 0-RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.6.1. Enabling 0-RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.6.1. Enabling 0-RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.6.2. Accepting and Rejecting 0-RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.6.2. Accepting and Rejecting 0-RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.6.3. Validating 0-RTT Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.6.3. Validating 0-RTT Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.7. HelloRetryRequest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.7. HelloRetryRequest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.8. TLS Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.8. TLS Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.9. Discarding Unused Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.9. Discarding Unused Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.9.1. Discarding Initial Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.9.1. Discarding Initial Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.9.2. Discarding Handshake Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.9.2. Discarding Handshake Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.9.3. Discarding 0-RTT Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.9.3. Discarding 0-RTT Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Packet Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5. Packet Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. Packet Protection Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.1. Packet Protection Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2. Initial Secrets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.2. Initial Secrets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.3. AEAD Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.3. AEAD Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.4. Header Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.4. Header Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.4.1. Header Protection Application . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.4.1. Header Protection Application . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.4.2. Header Protection Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.4.2. Header Protection Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.4.3. AES-Based Header Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.4.3. AES-Based Header Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.4.4. ChaCha20-Based Header Protection . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.4.4. ChaCha20-Based Header Protection . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.5. Receiving Protected Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 5.5. Receiving Protected Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.6. Use of 0-RTT Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 5.6. Use of 0-RTT Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.7. Receiving Out-of-Order Protected Packets . . . . . . . . 33 5.7. Receiving Out-of-Order Protected Packets . . . . . . . . 32
5.8. Retry Packet Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 5.8. Retry Packet Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6. Key Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 6. Key Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.1. Initiating a Key Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6.1. Initiating a Key Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.2. Responding to a Key Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6.2. Responding to a Key Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.3. Timing of Receive Key Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6.3. Timing of Receive Key Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.4. Sending with Updated Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6.4. Sending with Updated Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.5. Receiving with Different Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6.5. Receiving with Different Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.6. Limits on AEAD Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 6.6. Limits on AEAD Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.7. Key Update Error Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6.7. Key Update Error Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7. Security of Initial Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
8. QUIC-Specific Adjustments to the TLS Handshake . . . . . . . 42 7. Security of Initial Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8.1. Protocol Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 8. QUIC-Specific Adjustments to the TLS Handshake . . . . . . . 41
8.2. QUIC Transport Parameters Extension . . . . . . . . . . . 43 8.1. Protocol Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
8.3. Removing the EndOfEarlyData Message . . . . . . . . . . . 44 8.2. QUIC Transport Parameters Extension . . . . . . . . . . . 42
8.4. Prohibit TLS Middlebox Compatibility Mode . . . . . . . . 44 8.3. Removing the EndOfEarlyData Message . . . . . . . . . . . 43
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 8.4. Prohibit TLS Middlebox Compatibility Mode . . . . . . . . 43
9.1. Session Linkability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9.2. Replay Attacks with 0-RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 9.1. Session Linkability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9.3. Packet Reflection Attack Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . 46 9.2. Replay Attacks with 0-RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9.4. Header Protection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 9.3. Packet Reflection Attack Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . 45
9.5. Header Protection Timing Side-Channels . . . . . . . . . 47 9.4. Header Protection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
9.6. Key Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 9.5. Header Protection Timing Side Channels . . . . . . . . . 46
9.7. Randomness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 9.6. Key Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 9.7. Randomness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Appendix A. Sample Packet Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Appendix A. Sample Packet Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
A.1. Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 A.1. Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
A.2. Client Initial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 A.2. Client Initial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
A.3. Server Initial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 A.3. Server Initial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
A.4. Retry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 A.4. Retry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
A.5. ChaCha20-Poly1305 Short Header Packet . . . . . . . . . . 55 A.5. ChaCha20-Poly1305 Short Header Packet . . . . . . . . . . 55
Appendix B. AEAD Algorithm Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Appendix B. AEAD Algorithm Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
B.1. Analysis of AEAD_AES_128_GCM and AEAD_AES_256_GCM Usage B.1. Analysis of AEAD_AES_128_GCM and AEAD_AES_256_GCM Usage
Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
B.1.1. Confidentiality Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 B.1.1. Confidentiality Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
B.1.2. Integrity Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 B.1.2. Integrity Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
B.2. Analysis of AEAD_AES_128_CCM Usage Limits . . . . . . . . 59 B.2. Analysis of AEAD_AES_128_CCM Usage Limits . . . . . . . . 59
Appendix C. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
C.1. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
C.2. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
C.3. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
C.4. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
C.5. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
C.6. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
C.7. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
C.8. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
C.9. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
C.10. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
C.11. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
C.12. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
C.13. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
C.14. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
C.15. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
C.16. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
C.17. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
C.18. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
C.19. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
C.20. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
C.21. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
C.22. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
C.23. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
C.24. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
C.25. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
C.26. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
C.27. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
C.28. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
C.29. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
C.30. Since draft-thomson-quic-tls-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes how QUIC [QUIC-TRANSPORT] is secured using This document describes how QUIC [QUIC-TRANSPORT] is secured using
TLS [TLS13]. TLS [TLS13].
TLS 1.3 provides critical latency improvements for connection TLS 1.3 provides critical latency improvements for connection
establishment over previous versions. Absent packet loss, most new establishment over previous versions. Absent packet loss, most new
connections can be established and secured within a single round connections can be established and secured within a single round
trip; on subsequent connections between the same client and server, trip; on subsequent connections between the same client and server,
the client can often send application data immediately, that is, the client can often send application data immediately, that is,
using a zero round trip setup. using a zero round-trip setup.
This document describes how TLS acts as a security component of QUIC. This document describes how TLS acts as a security component of QUIC.
2. Notational Conventions 2. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
This document uses the terminology established in [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. This document uses the terminology established in [QUIC-TRANSPORT].
For brevity, the acronym TLS is used to refer to TLS 1.3, though a For brevity, the acronym TLS is used to refer to TLS 1.3, though a
newer version could be used; see Section 4.2. newer version could be used; see Section 4.2.
2.1. TLS Overview 2.1. TLS Overview
TLS provides two endpoints with a way to establish a means of TLS provides two endpoints with a way to establish a means of
skipping to change at page 5, line 32 skipping to change at page 4, line 40
Layer | Handshake | Alerts | Data | ... | Layer | Handshake | Alerts | Data | ... |
| | | | | | | | | |
+-------------+------------+--------------+---------+ +-------------+------------+--------------+---------+
Record | | Record | |
Layer | Records | Layer | Records |
| | | |
+---------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: TLS Layers Figure 1: TLS Layers
Each Content layer message (e.g., Handshake, Alerts, and Application Each content-layer message (e.g., handshake, alerts, and application
Data) is carried as a series of typed TLS records by the Record data) is carried as a series of typed TLS records by the record
layer. Records are individually cryptographically protected and then layer. Records are individually cryptographically protected and then
transmitted over a reliable transport (typically TCP), which provides transmitted over a reliable transport (typically TCP), which provides
sequencing and guaranteed delivery. sequencing and guaranteed delivery.
The TLS authenticated key exchange occurs between two endpoints: The TLS authenticated key exchange occurs between two endpoints:
client and server. The client initiates the exchange and the server client and server. The client initiates the exchange and the server
responds. If the key exchange completes successfully, both client responds. If the key exchange completes successfully, both client
and server will agree on a secret. TLS supports both pre-shared key and server will agree on a secret. TLS supports both pre-shared key
(PSK) and Diffie-Hellman over either finite fields or elliptic curves (PSK) and Diffie-Hellman over either finite fields or elliptic curves
((EC)DHE) key exchanges. PSK is the basis for Early Data (0-RTT); ((EC)DHE) key exchanges. PSK is the basis for Early Data (0-RTT);
the latter provides forward secrecy (FS) when the (EC)DHE keys are the latter provides forward secrecy (FS) when the (EC)DHE keys are
destroyed. The two modes can also be combined, to provide forward destroyed. The two modes can also be combined to provide forward
secrecy while using the PSK for authentication. secrecy while using the PSK for authentication.
After completing the TLS handshake, the client will have learned and After completing the TLS handshake, the client will have learned and
authenticated an identity for the server and the server is optionally authenticated an identity for the server, and the server is
able to learn and authenticate an identity for the client. TLS optionally able to learn and authenticate an identity for the client.
supports X.509 [RFC5280] certificate-based authentication for both TLS supports X.509 [RFC5280] certificate-based authentication for
server and client. When PSK key exchange is used (as in resumption), both server and client. When PSK key exchange is used (as in
knowledge of the PSK serves to authenticate the peer. resumption), knowledge of the PSK serves to authenticate the peer.
The TLS key exchange is resistant to tampering by attackers and it The TLS key exchange is resistant to tampering by attackers, and it
produces shared secrets that cannot be controlled by either produces shared secrets that cannot be controlled by either
participating peer. participating peer.
TLS provides two basic handshake modes of interest to QUIC: TLS provides two basic handshake modes of interest to QUIC:
o A full 1-RTT handshake, in which the client is able to send o A full 1-RTT handshake, in which the client is able to send
Application Data after one round trip and the server immediately application data after one round trip and the server immediately
responds after receiving the first handshake message from the responds after receiving the first handshake message from the
client. client.
o A 0-RTT handshake, in which the client uses information it has o A 0-RTT handshake, in which the client uses information it has
previously learned about the server to send Application Data previously learned about the server to send application data
immediately. This Application Data can be replayed by an attacker immediately. This application data can be replayed by an
so 0-RTT is not suitable for carrying instructions that might attacker, so 0-RTT is not suitable for carrying instructions that
initiate any action that could cause unwanted effects if replayed. might initiate any action that could cause unwanted effects if
replayed.
A simplified TLS handshake with 0-RTT application data is shown in A simplified TLS handshake with 0-RTT application data is shown in
Figure 2. Figure 2.
Client Server Client Server
ClientHello ClientHello
(0-RTT Application Data) --------> (0-RTT Application Data) -------->
ServerHello ServerHello
{EncryptedExtensions} {EncryptedExtensions}
skipping to change at page 7, line 7 skipping to change at page 6, line 32
Figure 2: TLS Handshake with 0-RTT Figure 2: TLS Handshake with 0-RTT
Figure 2 omits the EndOfEarlyData message, which is not used in QUIC; Figure 2 omits the EndOfEarlyData message, which is not used in QUIC;
see Section 8.3. Likewise, neither ChangeCipherSpec nor KeyUpdate see Section 8.3. Likewise, neither ChangeCipherSpec nor KeyUpdate
messages are used by QUIC. ChangeCipherSpec is redundant in TLS 1.3; messages are used by QUIC. ChangeCipherSpec is redundant in TLS 1.3;
see Section 8.4. QUIC has its own key update mechanism; see see Section 8.4. QUIC has its own key update mechanism; see
Section 6. Section 6.
Data is protected using a number of encryption levels: Data is protected using a number of encryption levels:
o Initial Keys o Initial keys
o Early Data (0-RTT) Keys o Early data (0-RTT) keys
o Handshake Keys o Handshake keys
o Application Data (1-RTT) Keys o Application data (1-RTT) keys
Application Data may appear only in the Early Data and Application Application data can only appear in the early data and application
Data levels. Handshake and Alert messages may appear in any level. data levels. Handshake and alert messages may appear in any level.
The 0-RTT handshake can be used if the client and server have The 0-RTT handshake can be used if the client and server have
previously communicated. In the 1-RTT handshake, the client is previously communicated. In the 1-RTT handshake, the client is
unable to send protected Application Data until it has received all unable to send protected application data until it has received all
of the Handshake messages sent by the server. of the handshake messages sent by the server.
3. Protocol Overview 3. Protocol Overview
QUIC [QUIC-TRANSPORT] assumes responsibility for the confidentiality QUIC [QUIC-TRANSPORT] assumes responsibility for the confidentiality
and integrity protection of packets. For this it uses keys derived and integrity protection of packets. For this it uses keys derived
from a TLS handshake [TLS13], but instead of carrying TLS records from a TLS handshake [TLS13], but instead of carrying TLS records
over QUIC (as with TCP), TLS Handshake and Alert messages are carried over QUIC (as with TCP), TLS handshake and alert messages are carried
directly over the QUIC transport, which takes over the directly over the QUIC transport, which takes over the
responsibilities of the TLS record layer, as shown in Figure 3. responsibilities of the TLS record layer, as shown in Figure 3.
+--------------+--------------+ +-------------+ +--------------+--------------+ +-------------+
| TLS | TLS | | QUIC | | TLS | TLS | | QUIC |
| Handshake | Alerts | | Applications| | Handshake | Alerts | | Applications|
| | | | (h3, etc.) | | | | | (h3, etc.) |
+--------------+--------------+-+-------------+ +--------------+--------------+-+-------------+
| | | |
| QUIC Transport | | QUIC Transport |
skipping to change at page 8, line 17 skipping to change at page 7, line 40
and record layer provided by QUIC. and record layer provided by QUIC.
At a high level, there are two main interactions between the TLS and At a high level, there are two main interactions between the TLS and
QUIC components: QUIC components:
o The TLS component sends and receives messages via the QUIC o The TLS component sends and receives messages via the QUIC
component, with QUIC providing a reliable stream abstraction to component, with QUIC providing a reliable stream abstraction to
TLS. TLS.
o The TLS component provides a series of updates to the QUIC o The TLS component provides a series of updates to the QUIC
component, including (a) new packet protection keys to install (b) component, including (a) new packet protection keys to install and
state changes such as handshake completion, the server (b) state changes such as handshake completion, the server
certificate, etc. certificate, etc.
Figure 4 shows these interactions in more detail, with the QUIC Figure 4 shows these interactions in more detail, with the QUIC
packet protection being called out specially. packet protection being called out specially.
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
| |<---- Handshake Messages ----->| | | |<---- Handshake Messages ----->| |
| |<- Validate 0-RTT parameters ->| | | |<- Validate 0-RTT Parameters ->| |
| |<--------- 0-RTT Keys ---------| | | |<--------- 0-RTT Keys ---------| |
| QUIC |<------- Handshake Keys -------| TLS | | QUIC |<------- Handshake Keys -------| TLS |
| |<--------- 1-RTT Keys ---------| | | |<--------- 1-RTT Keys ---------| |
| |<------- Handshake Done -------| | | |<------- Handshake Done -------| |
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
| ^ | ^
| Protect | Protected | Protect | Protected
v | Packet v | Packet
+------------+ +------------+
| QUIC | | QUIC |
| Packet | | Packet |
| Protection | | Protection |
+------------+ +------------+
Figure 4: QUIC and TLS Interactions Figure 4: QUIC and TLS Interactions
Unlike TLS over TCP, QUIC applications that want to send data do not Unlike TLS over TCP, QUIC applications that want to send data do not
send it through TLS "application_data" records. Rather, they send it send it using TLS Application Data records. Rather, they send it as
as QUIC STREAM frames or other frame types, which are then carried in QUIC STREAM frames or other frame types, which are then carried in
QUIC packets. QUIC packets.
4. Carrying TLS Messages 4. Carrying TLS Messages
QUIC carries TLS handshake data in CRYPTO frames, each of which QUIC carries TLS handshake data in CRYPTO frames, each of which
consists of a contiguous block of handshake data identified by an consists of a contiguous block of handshake data identified by an
offset and length. Those frames are packaged into QUIC packets and offset and length. Those frames are packaged into QUIC packets and
encrypted under the current encryption level. As with TLS over TCP, encrypted under the current encryption level. As with TLS over TCP,
once TLS handshake data has been delivered to QUIC, it is QUIC's once TLS handshake data has been delivered to QUIC, it is QUIC's
responsibility to deliver it reliably. Each chunk of data that is responsibility to deliver it reliably. Each chunk of data that is
skipping to change at page 10, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 32
Section 17 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT] shows how packets at the various Section 17 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT] shows how packets at the various
encryption levels fit into the handshake process. encryption levels fit into the handshake process.
4.1. Interface to TLS 4.1. Interface to TLS
As shown in Figure 4, the interface from QUIC to TLS consists of four As shown in Figure 4, the interface from QUIC to TLS consists of four
primary functions: primary functions:
o Sending and receiving handshake messages o Sending and receiving handshake messages
o Processing stored transport and application state from a resumed o Processing stored transport and application state from a resumed
session and determining if it is valid to generate or accept early session and determining if it is valid to generate or accept early
data data
o Rekeying (both transmit and receive) o Rekeying (both transmit and receive)
o Handshake state updates o Updating handshake state
Additional functions might be needed to configure TLS. In Additional functions might be needed to configure TLS. In
particular, QUIC and TLS need to agree on which is responsible for particular, QUIC and TLS need to agree on which is responsible for
validation of peer credentials, such as certificate validation validation of peer credentials, such as certificate validation
([RFC5280]). [RFC5280].
4.1.1. Handshake Complete 4.1.1. Handshake Complete
In this document, the TLS handshake is considered complete when the In this document, the TLS handshake is considered complete when the
TLS stack has reported that the handshake is complete. This happens TLS stack has reported that the handshake is complete. This happens
when the TLS stack has both sent a Finished message and verified the when the TLS stack has both sent a Finished message and verified the
peer's Finished message. Verifying the peer's Finished provides the peer's Finished message. Verifying the peer's Finished message
endpoints with an assurance that previous handshake messages have not provides the endpoints with an assurance that previous handshake
been modified. Note that the handshake does not complete at both messages have not been modified. Note that the handshake does not
endpoints simultaneously. Consequently, any requirement that is complete at both endpoints simultaneously. Consequently, any
based on the completion of the handshake depends on the perspective requirement that is based on the completion of the handshake depends
of the endpoint in question. on the perspective of the endpoint in question.
4.1.2. Handshake Confirmed 4.1.2. Handshake Confirmed
In this document, the TLS handshake is considered confirmed at the In this document, the TLS handshake is considered confirmed at the
server when the handshake completes. The server MUST send a server when the handshake completes. The server MUST send a
HANDSHAKE_DONE frame as soon as the handshake is complete. At the HANDSHAKE_DONE frame as soon as the handshake is complete. At the
client, the handshake is considered confirmed when a HANDSHAKE_DONE client, the handshake is considered confirmed when a HANDSHAKE_DONE
frame is received. frame is received.
Additionally, a client MAY consider the handshake to be confirmed Additionally, a client MAY consider the handshake to be confirmed
when it receives an acknowledgment for a 1-RTT packet. This can be when it receives an acknowledgment for a 1-RTT packet. This can be
implemented by recording the lowest packet number sent with 1-RTT implemented by recording the lowest packet number sent with 1-RTT
keys, and comparing it to the Largest Acknowledged field in any keys and comparing it to the Largest Acknowledged field in any
received 1-RTT ACK frame: once the latter is greater than or equal to received 1-RTT ACK frame: once the latter is greater than or equal to
the former, the handshake is confirmed. the former, the handshake is confirmed.
4.1.3. Sending and Receiving Handshake Messages 4.1.3. Sending and Receiving Handshake Messages
In order to drive the handshake, TLS depends on being able to send In order to drive the handshake, TLS depends on being able to send
and receive handshake messages. There are two basic functions on and receive handshake messages. There are two basic functions on
this interface: one where QUIC requests handshake messages and one this interface: one where QUIC requests handshake messages and one
where QUIC provides bytes that comprise handshake messages. where QUIC provides bytes that comprise handshake messages.
Before starting the handshake QUIC provides TLS with the transport Before starting the handshake, QUIC provides TLS with the transport
parameters (see Section 8.2) that it wishes to carry. parameters (see Section 8.2) that it wishes to carry.
A QUIC client starts TLS by requesting TLS handshake bytes from TLS. A QUIC client starts TLS by requesting TLS handshake bytes from TLS.
The client acquires handshake bytes before sending its first packet. The client acquires handshake bytes before sending its first packet.
A QUIC server starts the process by providing TLS with the client's A QUIC server starts the process by providing TLS with the client's
handshake bytes. handshake bytes.
At any time, the TLS stack at an endpoint will have a current sending At any time, the TLS stack at an endpoint will have a current sending
encryption level and receiving encryption level. TLS encryption encryption level and a receiving encryption level. TLS encryption
levels determine the QUIC packet type and keys that are used for levels determine the QUIC packet type and keys that are used for
protecting data. protecting data.
Each encryption level is associated with a different sequence of Each encryption level is associated with a different sequence of
bytes, which is reliably transmitted to the peer in CRYPTO frames. bytes, which is reliably transmitted to the peer in CRYPTO frames.
When TLS provides handshake bytes to be sent, they are appended to When TLS provides handshake bytes to be sent, they are appended to
the handshake bytes for the current encryption level. The encryption the handshake bytes for the current encryption level. The encryption
level then determines the type of packet that the resulting CRYPTO level then determines the type of packet that the resulting CRYPTO
frame is carried in; see Table 1. frame is carried in; see Table 1.
skipping to change at page 12, line 37 skipping to change at page 12, line 15
does not provide any means of flow control for CRYPTO frames; see does not provide any means of flow control for CRYPTO frames; see
Section 7.5 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. Section 7.5 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT].
Once the TLS handshake is complete, this is indicated to QUIC along Once the TLS handshake is complete, this is indicated to QUIC along
with any final handshake bytes that TLS needs to send. At this with any final handshake bytes that TLS needs to send. At this
stage, the transport parameters that the peer advertised during the stage, the transport parameters that the peer advertised during the
handshake are authenticated; see Section 8.2. handshake are authenticated; see Section 8.2.
Once the handshake is complete, TLS becomes passive. TLS can still Once the handshake is complete, TLS becomes passive. TLS can still
receive data from its peer and respond in kind, but it will not need receive data from its peer and respond in kind, but it will not need
to send more data unless specifically requested - either by an to send more data unless specifically requested -- either by an
application or QUIC. One reason to send data is that the server application or QUIC. One reason to send data is that the server
might wish to provide additional or updated session tickets to a might wish to provide additional or updated session tickets to a
client. client.
When the handshake is complete, QUIC only needs to provide TLS with When the handshake is complete, QUIC only needs to provide TLS with
any data that arrives in CRYPTO streams. In the same manner that is any data that arrives in CRYPTO streams. In the same manner that is
used during the handshake, new data is requested from TLS after used during the handshake, new data is requested from TLS after
providing received data. providing received data.
4.1.4. Encryption Level Changes 4.1.4. Encryption Level Changes
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 31
message is lost, the endpoint uses the Handshake encryption level to message is lost, the endpoint uses the Handshake encryption level to
retransmit the lost message. Reordering or loss of packets can mean retransmit the lost message. Reordering or loss of packets can mean
that QUIC will need to handle packets at multiple encryption levels. that QUIC will need to handle packets at multiple encryption levels.
During the handshake, this means potentially handling packets at During the handshake, this means potentially handling packets at
higher and lower encryption levels than the current encryption level higher and lower encryption levels than the current encryption level
used by TLS. used by TLS.
In particular, server implementations need to be able to read packets In particular, server implementations need to be able to read packets
at the Handshake encryption level at the same time as the 0-RTT at the Handshake encryption level at the same time as the 0-RTT
encryption level. A client could interleave ACK frames that are encryption level. A client could interleave ACK frames that are
protected with Handshake keys with 0-RTT data and the server needs to protected with Handshake keys with 0-RTT data, and the server needs
process those acknowledgments in order to detect lost Handshake to process those acknowledgments in order to detect lost Handshake
packets. packets.
QUIC also needs access to keys that might not ordinarily be available QUIC also needs access to keys that might not ordinarily be available
to a TLS implementation. For instance, a client might need to to a TLS implementation. For instance, a client might need to
acknowledge Handshake packets before it is ready to send CRYPTO acknowledge Handshake packets before it is ready to send CRYPTO
frames at that encryption level. TLS therefore needs to provide keys frames at that encryption level. TLS therefore needs to provide keys
to QUIC before it might produce them for its own use. to QUIC before it might produce them for its own use.
4.1.5. TLS Interface Summary 4.1.5. TLS Interface Summary
Figure 5 summarizes the exchange between QUIC and TLS for both client Figure 5 summarizes the exchange between QUIC and TLS for both client
and server. Solid arrows indicate packets that carry handshake data; and server. Solid arrows indicate packets that carry handshake data;
dashed arrows show where application data can be sent. Each arrow is dashed arrows show where application data can be sent. Each arrow is
tagged with the encryption level used for that transmission. tagged with the encryption level used for that transmission.
Client Server Client Server
====== ====== ====== ======
Get Handshake Get Handshake
Initial -------------> Initial ------------->
Install tx 0-RTT Keys Install tx 0-RTT keys
0-RTT - - - - - - - -> 0-RTT - - - - - - - ->
Handshake Received Handshake Received
Get Handshake Get Handshake
<------------- Initial <------------- Initial
Install rx 0-RTT keys Install rx 0-RTT keys
Install Handshake keys Install Handshake keys
Get Handshake Get Handshake
<----------- Handshake <----------- Handshake
Install tx 1-RTT keys Install tx 1-RTT keys
skipping to change at page 16, line 13 skipping to change at page 15, line 13
endpoint implementations and the order in which packets arrive. endpoint implementations and the order in which packets arrive.
Implementations could use a different number of operations or execute Implementations could use a different number of operations or execute
them in other orders. them in other orders.
4.2. TLS Version 4.2. TLS Version
This document describes how TLS 1.3 [TLS13] is used with QUIC. This document describes how TLS 1.3 [TLS13] is used with QUIC.
In practice, the TLS handshake will negotiate a version of TLS to In practice, the TLS handshake will negotiate a version of TLS to
use. This could result in a newer version of TLS than 1.3 being use. This could result in a version of TLS newer than 1.3 being
negotiated if both endpoints support that version. This is negotiated if both endpoints support that version. This is
acceptable provided that the features of TLS 1.3 that are used by acceptable provided that the features of TLS 1.3 that are used by
QUIC are supported by the newer version. QUIC are supported by the newer version.
Clients MUST NOT offer TLS versions older than 1.3. A badly Clients MUST NOT offer TLS versions older than 1.3. A badly
configured TLS implementation could negotiate TLS 1.2 or another configured TLS implementation could negotiate TLS 1.2 or another
older version of TLS. An endpoint MUST terminate the connection if a older version of TLS. An endpoint MUST terminate the connection if a
version of TLS older than 1.3 is negotiated. version of TLS older than 1.3 is negotiated.
4.3. ClientHello Size 4.3. ClientHello Size
The first Initial packet from a client contains the start or all of The first Initial packet from a client contains the start or all of
its first cryptographic handshake message, which for TLS is the its first cryptographic handshake message, which for TLS is the
ClientHello. Servers might need to parse the entire ClientHello ClientHello. Servers might need to parse the entire ClientHello
(e.g., to access extensions such as Server Name Identification (SNI) (e.g., to access extensions such as Server Name Identification (SNI)
or Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN)) in order to decide or Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN)) in order to decide
whether to accept the new incoming QUIC connection. If the whether to accept the new incoming QUIC connection. If the
ClientHello spans multiple Initial packets, such servers would need ClientHello spans multiple Initial packets, such servers would need
to buffer the first received fragments, which could consume excessive to buffer the first received fragments, which could consume excessive
resources if the client's address has not yet been validated. To resources if the client's address has not yet been validated. To
avoid this, servers MAY use the Retry feature (see Section 8.1 of avoid this, servers MAY use the Retry feature (see Section 8.1 of
[QUIC-TRANSPORT]) to only buffer partial ClientHello messages from [QUIC-TRANSPORT]) to only buffer partial ClientHello messages from
clients with a validated address. clients with a validated address.
QUIC packet and framing add at least 36 bytes of overhead to the QUIC packet and framing add at least 36 bytes of overhead to the
ClientHello message. That overhead increases if the client chooses a ClientHello message. That overhead increases if the client chooses a
source connection ID longer than zero bytes. Overheads also do not Source Connection ID field longer than zero bytes. Overheads also do
include the token or a destination connection ID longer than 8 bytes, not include the token or a Destination Connection ID longer than 8
both of which might be required if a server sends a Retry packet. bytes, both of which might be required if a server sends a Retry
packet.
A typical TLS ClientHello can easily fit into a 1200-byte packet. A typical TLS ClientHello can easily fit into a 1200-byte packet.
However, in addition to the overheads added by QUIC, there are However, in addition to the overheads added by QUIC, there are
several variables that could cause this limit to be exceeded. Large several variables that could cause this limit to be exceeded. Large
session tickets, multiple or large key shares, and long lists of session tickets, multiple or large key shares, and long lists of
supported ciphers, signature algorithms, versions, QUIC transport supported ciphers, signature algorithms, versions, QUIC transport
parameters, and other negotiable parameters and extensions could parameters, and other negotiable parameters and extensions could
cause this message to grow. cause this message to grow.
For servers, in addition to connection IDs and tokens, the size of For servers, in addition to connection IDs and tokens, the size of
TLS session tickets can have an effect on a client's ability to TLS session tickets can have an effect on a client's ability to
connect efficiently. Minimizing the size of these values increases connect efficiently. Minimizing the size of these values increases
the probability that clients can use them and still fit their entire the probability that clients can use them and still fit their entire
ClientHello message in their first Initial packet. ClientHello message in their first Initial packet.
The TLS implementation does not need to ensure that the ClientHello The TLS implementation does not need to ensure that the ClientHello
is large enough to meet the requirements for QUIC packets. QUIC is large enough to meet QUIC's requirements for datagrams that carry
PADDING frames are added to increase the size of the packet as Initial packets; see Section 14.1 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. QUIC
necessary; see Section 14.1 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. implementations use PADDING frames or packet coalescing to ensure
that datagrams are large enough.
4.4. Peer Authentication 4.4. Peer Authentication
The requirements for authentication depend on the application The requirements for authentication depend on the application
protocol that is in use. TLS provides server authentication and protocol that is in use. TLS provides server authentication and
permits the server to request client authentication. permits the server to request client authentication.
A client MUST authenticate the identity of the server. This A client MUST authenticate the identity of the server. This
typically involves verification that the identity of the server is typically involves verification that the identity of the server is
included in a certificate and that the certificate is issued by a included in a certificate and that the certificate is issued by a
trusted entity (see for example [RFC2818]). trusted entity (see for example [RFC2818]).
Note: Where servers provide certificates for authentication, the Note: Where servers provide certificates for authentication, the
size of the certificate chain can consume a large number of bytes. size of the certificate chain can consume a large number of bytes.
Controlling the size of certificate chains is critical to Controlling the size of certificate chains is critical to
performance in QUIC as servers are limited to sending 3 bytes for performance in QUIC as servers are limited to sending 3 bytes for
every byte received prior to validating the client address; see every byte received prior to validating the client address; see
Section 8.1 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. The size of a certificate chain Section 8.1 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. The size of a certificate chain
can be managed by limiting the number of names or extensions; can be managed by limiting the number of names or extensions;
using keys with small public key representations, like ECDSA; or using keys with small public key representations, like ECDSA; or
by using certificate compression [COMPRESS]. by using certificate compression [COMPRESS].
A server MAY request that the client authenticate during the A server MAY request that the client authenticate during the
handshake. A server MAY refuse a connection if the client is unable handshake. A server MAY refuse a connection if the client is unable
to authenticate when requested. The requirements for client to authenticate when requested. The requirements for client
authentication vary based on application protocol and deployment. authentication vary based on application protocol and deployment.
A server MUST NOT use post-handshake client authentication (as A server MUST NOT use post-handshake client authentication (as
defined in Section 4.6.2 of [TLS13]), because the multiplexing defined in Section 4.6.2 of [TLS13]) because the multiplexing offered
offered by QUIC prevents clients from correlating the certificate by QUIC prevents clients from correlating the certificate request
request with the application-level event that triggered it (see with the application-level event that triggered it (see
[HTTP2-TLS13]). More specifically, servers MUST NOT send post- [HTTP2-TLS13]). More specifically, servers MUST NOT send post-
handshake TLS CertificateRequest messages and clients MUST treat handshake TLS CertificateRequest messages, and clients MUST treat
receipt of such messages as a connection error of type receipt of such messages as a connection error of type
PROTOCOL_VIOLATION. PROTOCOL_VIOLATION.
4.5. Session Resumption 4.5. Session Resumption
QUIC can use the session resumption feature of TLS 1.3. It does this QUIC can use the session resumption feature of TLS 1.3. It does this
by carrying NewSessionTicket messages in CRYPTO frames after the by carrying NewSessionTicket messages in CRYPTO frames after the
handshake is complete. Session resumption can be used to provide handshake is complete. Session resumption can be used to provide
0-RTT, and can also be used when 0-RTT is disabled. 0-RTT and can also be used when 0-RTT is disabled.
Endpoints that use session resumption might need to remember some Endpoints that use session resumption might need to remember some
information about the current connection when creating a resumed information about the current connection when creating a resumed
connection. TLS requires that some information be retained; see connection. TLS requires that some information be retained; see
Section 4.6.1 of [TLS13]. QUIC itself does not depend on any state Section 4.6.1 of [TLS13]. QUIC itself does not depend on any state
being retained when resuming a connection, unless 0-RTT is also used; being retained when resuming a connection unless 0-RTT is also used;
see Section 7.4.1 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT] and Section 4.6.1. Application see Section 7.4.1 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT] and Section 4.6.1. Application
protocols could depend on state that is retained between resumed protocols could depend on state that is retained between resumed
connections. connections.
Clients can store any state required for resumption along with the Clients can store any state required for resumption along with the
session ticket. Servers can use the session ticket to help carry session ticket. Servers can use the session ticket to help carry
state. state.
Session resumption allows servers to link activity on the original Session resumption allows servers to link activity on the original
connection with the resumed connection, which might be a privacy connection with the resumed connection, which might be a privacy
skipping to change at page 19, line 5 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
governed by [TLS13], QUIC transport parameters, the chosen governed by [TLS13], QUIC transport parameters, the chosen
application protocol, and any information the application protocol application protocol, and any information the application protocol
might need; see Section 4.6.3. This information determines how 0-RTT might need; see Section 4.6.3. This information determines how 0-RTT
packets and their contents are formed. packets and their contents are formed.
To ensure that the same information is available to both endpoints, To ensure that the same information is available to both endpoints,
all information used to establish 0-RTT comes from the same all information used to establish 0-RTT comes from the same
connection. Endpoints cannot selectively disregard information that connection. Endpoints cannot selectively disregard information that
might alter the sending or processing of 0-RTT. might alter the sending or processing of 0-RTT.
[TLS13] sets a limit of 7 days on the time between the original [TLS13] sets a limit of seven days on the time between the original
connection and any attempt to use 0-RTT. There are other constraints connection and any attempt to use 0-RTT. There are other constraints
on 0-RTT usage, notably those caused by the potential exposure to on 0-RTT usage, notably those caused by the potential exposure to
replay attack; see Section 9.2. replay attack; see Section 9.2.
4.6.1. Enabling 0-RTT 4.6.1. Enabling 0-RTT
The TLS "early_data" extension in the NewSessionTicket message is The TLS early_data extension in the NewSessionTicket message is
defined to convey (in the "max_early_data_size" parameter) the amount defined to convey (in the max_early_data_size parameter) the amount
of TLS 0-RTT data the server is willing to accept. QUIC does not use of TLS 0-RTT data the server is willing to accept. QUIC does not use
TLS 0-RTT data. QUIC uses 0-RTT packets to carry early data. TLS 0-RTT data. QUIC uses 0-RTT packets to carry early data.
Accordingly, the "max_early_data_size" parameter is repurposed to Accordingly, the max_early_data_size parameter is repurposed to hold
hold a sentinel value 0xffffffff to indicate that the server is a sentinel value 0xffffffff to indicate that the server is willing to
willing to accept QUIC 0-RTT data; to indicate that the server does accept QUIC 0-RTT data. To indicate that the server does not accept
not accept 0-RTT data, the "early_data" extension is omitted from the 0-RTT data, the early_data extension is omitted from the
NewSessionTicket. The amount of data that the client can send in NewSessionTicket. The amount of data that the client can send in
QUIC 0-RTT is controlled by the initial_max_data transport parameter QUIC 0-RTT is controlled by the initial_max_data transport parameter
supplied by the server. supplied by the server.
Servers MUST NOT send the early_data extension with a Servers MUST NOT send the early_data extension with a
max_early_data_size field set to any value other than 0xffffffff. A max_early_data_size field set to any value other than 0xffffffff. A
client MUST treat receipt of a NewSessionTicket that contains an client MUST treat receipt of a NewSessionTicket that contains an
early_data extension with any other value as a connection error of early_data extension with any other value as a connection error of
type PROTOCOL_VIOLATION. type PROTOCOL_VIOLATION.
skipping to change at page 20, line 32 skipping to change at page 19, line 32
protocol using QUIC might reject early data because the configuration protocol using QUIC might reject early data because the configuration
of the transport or application associated with the resumed session of the transport or application associated with the resumed session
is not compatible with the server's current configuration. is not compatible with the server's current configuration.
QUIC requires additional transport state to be associated with a QUIC requires additional transport state to be associated with a
0-RTT session ticket. One common way to implement this is using 0-RTT session ticket. One common way to implement this is using
stateless session tickets and storing this state in the session stateless session tickets and storing this state in the session
ticket. Application protocols that use QUIC might have similar ticket. Application protocols that use QUIC might have similar
requirements regarding associating or storing state. This associated requirements regarding associating or storing state. This associated
state is used for deciding whether early data must be rejected. For state is used for deciding whether early data must be rejected. For
example, HTTP/3 ([QUIC-HTTP]) settings determine how early data from example, HTTP/3 settings [QUIC-HTTP] determine how early data from
the client is interpreted. Other applications using QUIC could have the client is interpreted. Other applications using QUIC could have
different requirements for determining whether to accept or reject different requirements for determining whether to accept or reject
early data. early data.
4.7. HelloRetryRequest 4.7. HelloRetryRequest
The HelloRetryRequest message (see Section 4.1.4 of [TLS13]) can be The HelloRetryRequest message (see Section 4.1.4 of [TLS13]) can be
used to request that a client provide new information, such as a key used to request that a client provide new information, such as a key
share, or to validate some characteristic of the client. From the share, or to validate some characteristic of the client. From the
perspective of QUIC, HelloRetryRequest is not differentiated from perspective of QUIC, HelloRetryRequest is not differentiated from
skipping to change at page 21, line 6 skipping to change at page 20, line 6
packets. Although it is in principle possible to use this feature packets. Although it is in principle possible to use this feature
for address verification, QUIC implementations SHOULD instead use the for address verification, QUIC implementations SHOULD instead use the
Retry feature; see Section 8.1 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. Retry feature; see Section 8.1 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT].
4.8. TLS Errors 4.8. TLS Errors
If TLS experiences an error, it generates an appropriate alert as If TLS experiences an error, it generates an appropriate alert as
defined in Section 6 of [TLS13]. defined in Section 6 of [TLS13].
A TLS alert is converted into a QUIC connection error. The A TLS alert is converted into a QUIC connection error. The
AlertDescription value is added to 0x100 to produce a QUIC error code AlertDescription value is added to 0x0100 to produce a QUIC error
from the range reserved for CRYPTO_ERROR. The resulting value is code from the range reserved for CRYPTO_ERROR; see Section 20.1 of
sent in a QUIC CONNECTION_CLOSE frame of type 0x1c. [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. The resulting value is sent in a QUIC
CONNECTION_CLOSE frame of type 0x1c.
QUIC is only able to convey an alert level of "fatal". In TLS 1.3, QUIC is only able to convey an alert level of "fatal". In TLS 1.3,
the only existing uses for the "warning" level are to signal the only existing uses for the "warning" level are to signal
connection close; see Section 6.1 of [TLS13]. As QUIC provides connection close; see Section 6.1 of [TLS13]. As QUIC provides
alternative mechanisms for connection termination and the TLS alternative mechanisms for connection termination and the TLS
connection is only closed if an error is encountered, a QUIC endpoint connection is only closed if an error is encountered, a QUIC endpoint
MUST treat any alert from TLS as if it were at the "fatal" level. MUST treat any alert from TLS as if it were at the "fatal" level.
QUIC permits the use of a generic code in place of a specific error QUIC permits the use of a generic code in place of a specific error
code; see Section 11 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. For TLS alerts, this code; see Section 11 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. For TLS alerts, this
includes replacing any alert with a generic alert, such as includes replacing any alert with a generic alert, such as
handshake_failure (0x128 in QUIC). Endpoints MAY use a generic error handshake_failure (0x0128 in QUIC). Endpoints MAY use a generic
code to avoid possibly exposing confidential information. error code to avoid possibly exposing confidential information.
4.9. Discarding Unused Keys 4.9. Discarding Unused Keys
After QUIC has completed a move to a new encryption level, packet After QUIC has completed a move to a new encryption level, packet
protection keys for previous encryption levels can be discarded. protection keys for previous encryption levels can be discarded.
This occurs several times during the handshake, as well as when keys This occurs several times during the handshake, as well as when keys
are updated; see Section 6. are updated; see Section 6.
Packet protection keys are not discarded immediately when new keys Packet protection keys are not discarded immediately when new keys
are available. If packets from a lower encryption level contain are available. If packets from a lower encryption level contain
skipping to change at page 21, line 49 skipping to change at page 20, line 50
An endpoint cannot discard keys for a given encryption level unless An endpoint cannot discard keys for a given encryption level unless
it has received all the cryptographic handshake messages from its it has received all the cryptographic handshake messages from its
peer at that encryption level and its peer has done the same. peer at that encryption level and its peer has done the same.
Different methods for determining this are provided for Initial keys Different methods for determining this are provided for Initial keys
(Section 4.9.1) and Handshake keys (Section 4.9.2). These methods do (Section 4.9.1) and Handshake keys (Section 4.9.2). These methods do
not prevent packets from being received or sent at that encryption not prevent packets from being received or sent at that encryption
level because a peer might not have received all the acknowledgments level because a peer might not have received all the acknowledgments
necessary. necessary.
Though an endpoint might retain older keys, new data MUST be sent at Though an endpoint might retain older keys, new data MUST be sent at
the highest currently-available encryption level. Only ACK frames the highest currently available encryption level. Only ACK frames
and retransmissions of data in CRYPTO frames are sent at a previous and retransmissions of data in CRYPTO frames are sent at a previous
encryption level. These packets MAY also include PADDING frames. encryption level. These packets MAY also include PADDING frames.
4.9.1. Discarding Initial Keys 4.9.1. Discarding Initial Keys
Packets protected with Initial secrets (Section 5.2) are not Packets protected with Initial secrets (Section 5.2) are not
authenticated, meaning that an attacker could spoof packets with the authenticated, meaning that an attacker could spoof packets with the
intent to disrupt a connection. To limit these attacks, Initial intent to disrupt a connection. To limit these attacks, Initial
packet protection keys are discarded more aggressively than other packet protection keys are discarded more aggressively than other
keys. keys.
skipping to change at page 22, line 26 skipping to change at page 21, line 26
Thus, a client MUST discard Initial keys when it first sends a Thus, a client MUST discard Initial keys when it first sends a
Handshake packet and a server MUST discard Initial keys when it first Handshake packet and a server MUST discard Initial keys when it first
successfully processes a Handshake packet. Endpoints MUST NOT send successfully processes a Handshake packet. Endpoints MUST NOT send
Initial packets after this point. Initial packets after this point.
This results in abandoning loss recovery state for the Initial This results in abandoning loss recovery state for the Initial
encryption level and ignoring any outstanding Initial packets. encryption level and ignoring any outstanding Initial packets.
4.9.2. Discarding Handshake Keys 4.9.2. Discarding Handshake Keys
An endpoint MUST discard its handshake keys when the TLS handshake is An endpoint MUST discard its Handshake keys when the TLS handshake is
confirmed (Section 4.1.2). confirmed (Section 4.1.2).
4.9.3. Discarding 0-RTT Keys 4.9.3. Discarding 0-RTT Keys
0-RTT and 1-RTT packets share the same packet number space, and 0-RTT and 1-RTT packets share the same packet number space, and
clients do not send 0-RTT packets after sending a 1-RTT packet clients do not send 0-RTT packets after sending a 1-RTT packet
(Section 5.6). (Section 5.6).
Therefore, a client SHOULD discard 0-RTT keys as soon as it installs Therefore, a client SHOULD discard 0-RTT keys as soon as it installs
1-RTT keys, since they have no use after that moment. 1-RTT keys as they have no use after that moment.
Additionally, a server MAY discard 0-RTT keys as soon as it receives Additionally, a server MAY discard 0-RTT keys as soon as it receives
a 1-RTT packet. However, due to packet reordering, a 0-RTT packet a 1-RTT packet. However, due to packet reordering, a 0-RTT packet
could arrive after a 1-RTT packet. Servers MAY temporarily retain could arrive after a 1-RTT packet. Servers MAY temporarily retain
0-RTT keys to allow decrypting reordered packets without requiring 0-RTT keys to allow decrypting reordered packets without requiring
their contents to be retransmitted with 1-RTT keys. After receiving their contents to be retransmitted with 1-RTT keys. After receiving
a 1-RTT packet, servers MUST discard 0-RTT keys within a short time; a 1-RTT packet, servers MUST discard 0-RTT keys within a short time;
the RECOMMENDED time period is three times the Probe Timeout (PTO, the RECOMMENDED time period is three times the Probe Timeout (PTO,
see [QUIC-RECOVERY]). A server MAY discard 0-RTT keys earlier if it see [QUIC-RECOVERY]). A server MAY discard 0-RTT keys earlier if it
determines that it has received all 0-RTT packets, which can be done determines that it has received all 0-RTT packets, which can be done
skipping to change at page 24, line 22 skipping to change at page 23, line 22
input to the KDF to produce the AEAD key; the label "quic iv" is used input to the KDF to produce the AEAD key; the label "quic iv" is used
to derive the Initialization Vector (IV); see Section 5.3. The to derive the Initialization Vector (IV); see Section 5.3. The
header protection key uses the "quic hp" label; see Section 5.4. header protection key uses the "quic hp" label; see Section 5.4.
Using these labels provides key separation between QUIC and TLS; see Using these labels provides key separation between QUIC and TLS; see
Section 9.6. Section 9.6.
Both "quic key" and "quic hp" are used to produce keys, so the Length Both "quic key" and "quic hp" are used to produce keys, so the Length
provided to HKDF-Expand-Label along with these labels is determined provided to HKDF-Expand-Label along with these labels is determined
by the size of keys in the AEAD or header protection algorithm. The by the size of keys in the AEAD or header protection algorithm. The
Length provided with "quic iv" is the minimum length of the AEAD Length provided with "quic iv" is the minimum length of the AEAD
nonce, or 8 bytes if that is larger; see [AEAD]. nonce or 8 bytes if that is larger; see [AEAD].
The KDF used for initial secrets is always the HKDF-Expand-Label The KDF used for initial secrets is always the HKDF-Expand-Label
function from TLS 1.3; see Section 5.2. function from TLS 1.3; see Section 5.2.
5.2. Initial Secrets 5.2. Initial Secrets
Initial packets apply the packet protection process, but use a secret Initial packets apply the packet protection process, but use a secret
derived from the Destination Connection ID field from the client's derived from the Destination Connection ID field from the client's
first Initial packet. first Initial packet.
This secret is determined by using HKDF-Extract (see Section 2.2 of This secret is determined by using HKDF-Extract (see Section 2.2 of
[HKDF]) with a salt of 0x38762cf7f55934b34d179ae6a4c80cadccbb7f0a and [HKDF]) with a salt of 0x38762cf7f55934b34d179ae6a4c80cadccbb7f0a and
a IKM of the Destination Connection ID field. This produces an the input keying material (IKM) of the Destination Connection ID
intermediate pseudorandom key (PRK) that is used to derive two field. This produces an intermediate pseudorandom key (PRK) that is
separate secrets for sending and receiving. used to derive two separate secrets for sending and receiving.
The secret used by clients to construct Initial packets uses the PRK The secret used by clients to construct Initial packets uses the PRK
and the label "client in" as input to the HKDF-Expand-Label function and the label "client in" as input to the HKDF-Expand-Label function
from TLS [TLS13] to produce a 32-byte secret. Packets constructed by from TLS [TLS13] to produce a 32-byte secret. Packets constructed by
the server use the same process with the label "server in". The hash the server use the same process with the label "server in". The hash
function for HKDF when deriving initial secrets and keys is SHA-256 function for HKDF when deriving initial secrets and keys is SHA-256
[SHA]. [SHA].
This process in pseudocode is: This process in pseudocode is:
skipping to change at page 25, line 18 skipping to change at page 24, line 18
client_initial_secret = HKDF-Expand-Label(initial_secret, client_initial_secret = HKDF-Expand-Label(initial_secret,
"client in", "", "client in", "",
Hash.length) Hash.length)
server_initial_secret = HKDF-Expand-Label(initial_secret, server_initial_secret = HKDF-Expand-Label(initial_secret,
"server in", "", "server in", "",
Hash.length) Hash.length)
The connection ID used with HKDF-Expand-Label is the Destination The connection ID used with HKDF-Expand-Label is the Destination
Connection ID in the Initial packet sent by the client. This will be Connection ID in the Initial packet sent by the client. This will be
a randomly-selected value unless the client creates the Initial a randomly selected value unless the client creates the Initial
packet after receiving a Retry packet, where the Destination packet after receiving a Retry packet, where the Destination
Connection ID is selected by the server. Connection ID is selected by the server.
Future versions of QUIC SHOULD generate a new salt value, thus Future versions of QUIC SHOULD generate a new salt value, thus
ensuring that the keys are different for each version of QUIC. This ensuring that the keys are different for each version of QUIC. This
prevents a middlebox that recognizes only one version of QUIC from prevents a middlebox that recognizes only one version of QUIC from
seeing or modifying the contents of packets from future versions. seeing or modifying the contents of packets from future versions.
The HKDF-Expand-Label function defined in TLS 1.3 MUST be used for The HKDF-Expand-Label function defined in TLS 1.3 MUST be used for
Initial packets even where the TLS versions offered do not include Initial packets even where the TLS versions offered do not include
TLS 1.3. TLS 1.3.
The secrets used for constructing subsequent Initial packets change The secrets used for constructing subsequent Initial packets change
when a server sends a Retry packet, to use the connection ID value when a server sends a Retry packet to use the connection ID value
selected by the server. The secrets do not change when a client selected by the server. The secrets do not change when a client
changes the Destination Connection ID it uses in response to an changes the Destination Connection ID it uses in response to an
Initial packet from the server. Initial packet from the server.
Note: The Destination Connection ID field could be any length up to Note: The Destination Connection ID field could be any length up
20 bytes, including zero length if the server sends a Retry packet to 20 bytes, including zero length if the server sends a Retry
with a zero-length Source Connection ID field. After a Retry, the packet with a zero-length Source Connection ID field. After a
Initial keys provide the client no assurance that the server Retry, the Initial keys provide the client no assurance that the
received its packet, so the client has to rely on the exchange server received its packet, so the client has to rely on the
that included the Retry packet to validate the server address; see exchange that included the Retry packet to validate the server
Section 8.1 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. address; see Section 8.1 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT].
Appendix A contains sample Initial packets. Appendix A contains sample Initial packets.
5.3. AEAD Usage 5.3. AEAD Usage
The Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD; see [AEAD]) The Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) function
function used for QUIC packet protection is the AEAD that is (see [AEAD]) used for QUIC packet protection is the AEAD that is
negotiated for use with the TLS connection. For example, if TLS is negotiated for use with the TLS connection. For example, if TLS is
using the TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 cipher suite, the AEAD_AES_128_GCM using the TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 cipher suite, the AEAD_AES_128_GCM
function is used. function is used.
QUIC can use any of the cipher suites defined in [TLS13] with the QUIC can use any of the cipher suites defined in [TLS13] with the
exception of TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256. A cipher suite MUST NOT be exception of TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256. A cipher suite MUST NOT be
negotiated unless a header protection scheme is defined for the negotiated unless a header protection scheme is defined for the
cipher suite. This document defines a header protection scheme for cipher suite. This document defines a header protection scheme for
all cipher suites defined in [TLS13] aside from all cipher suites defined in [TLS13] aside from
TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256. These cipher suites have a 16-byte TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256. These cipher suites have a 16-byte
authentication tag and produce an output 16 bytes larger than their authentication tag and produce an output 16 bytes larger than their
input. input.
Note: An endpoint MUST NOT reject a ClientHello that offers a cipher An endpoint MUST NOT reject a ClientHello that offers a cipher suite
suite that it does not support, or it would be impossible to that it does not support, or it would be impossible to deploy a new
deploy a new cipher suite. This also applies to cipher suite. This also applies to TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256.
TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256.
When constructing packets, the AEAD function is applied prior to When constructing packets, the AEAD function is applied prior to
applying header protection; see Section 5.4. The unprotected packet applying header protection; see Section 5.4. The unprotected packet
header is part of the associated data (A). When processing packets, header is part of the associated data (A). When processing packets,
an endpoint first removes the header protection. an endpoint first removes the header protection.
The key and IV for the packet are computed as described in The key and IV for the packet are computed as described in
Section 5.1. The nonce, N, is formed by combining the packet Section 5.1. The nonce, N, is formed by combining the packet
protection IV with the packet number. The 62 bits of the protection IV with the packet number. The 62 bits of the
reconstructed QUIC packet number in network byte order are left- reconstructed QUIC packet number in network byte order are left-
skipping to change at page 27, line 13 skipping to change at page 26, line 7
use. use.
5.4. Header Protection 5.4. Header Protection
Parts of QUIC packet headers, in particular the Packet Number field, Parts of QUIC packet headers, in particular the Packet Number field,
are protected using a key that is derived separately from the packet are protected using a key that is derived separately from the packet
protection key and IV. The key derived using the "quic hp" label is protection key and IV. The key derived using the "quic hp" label is
used to provide confidentiality protection for those fields that are used to provide confidentiality protection for those fields that are
not exposed to on-path elements. not exposed to on-path elements.
This protection applies to the least-significant bits of the first This protection applies to the least significant bits of the first
byte, plus the Packet Number field. The four least-significant bits byte, plus the Packet Number field. The four least significant bits
of the first byte are protected for packets with long headers; the of the first byte are protected for packets with long headers; the
five least significant bits of the first byte are protected for five least significant bits of the first byte are protected for
packets with short headers. For both header forms, this covers the packets with short headers. For both header forms, this covers the
reserved bits and the Packet Number Length field; the Key Phase bit reserved bits and the Packet Number Length field; the Key Phase bit
is also protected for packets with a short header. is also protected for packets with a short header.
The same header protection key is used for the duration of the The same header protection key is used for the duration of the
connection, with the value not changing after a key update (see connection, with the value not changing after a key update (see
Section 6). This allows header protection to be used to protect the Section 6). This allows header protection to be used to protect the
key phase. key phase.
skipping to change at page 27, line 47 skipping to change at page 26, line 41
The output of this algorithm is a 5-byte mask that is applied to the The output of this algorithm is a 5-byte mask that is applied to the
protected header fields using exclusive OR. The least significant protected header fields using exclusive OR. The least significant
bits of the first byte of the packet are masked by the least bits of the first byte of the packet are masked by the least
significant bits of the first mask byte, and the packet number is significant bits of the first mask byte, and the packet number is
masked with the remaining bytes. Any unused bytes of mask that might masked with the remaining bytes. Any unused bytes of mask that might
result from a shorter packet number encoding are unused. result from a shorter packet number encoding are unused.
Figure 6 shows a sample algorithm for applying header protection. Figure 6 shows a sample algorithm for applying header protection.
Removing header protection only differs in the order in which the Removing header protection only differs in the order in which the
packet number length (pn_length) is determined (here "^" is used to packet number length (pn_length) is determined (here "^" is used to
represent exclusive or). represent exclusive OR).
mask = header_protection(hp_key, sample) mask = header_protection(hp_key, sample)
pn_length = (packet[0] & 0x03) + 1 pn_length = (packet[0] & 0x03) + 1
if (packet[0] & 0x80) == 0x80: if (packet[0] & 0x80) == 0x80:
# Long header: 4 bits masked # Long header: 4 bits masked
packet[0] ^= mask[0] & 0x0f packet[0] ^= mask[0] & 0x0f
else: else:
# Short header: 5 bits masked # Short header: 5 bits masked
packet[0] ^= mask[0] & 0x1f packet[0] ^= mask[0] & 0x1f
skipping to change at page 30, line 11 skipping to change at page 29, line 11
in [AEAD]), and AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 (defined in [CHACHA]). Prior in [AEAD]), and AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 (defined in [CHACHA]). Prior
to TLS selecting a cipher suite, AES header protection is used to TLS selecting a cipher suite, AES header protection is used
(Section 5.4.3), matching the AEAD_AES_128_GCM packet protection. (Section 5.4.3), matching the AEAD_AES_128_GCM packet protection.
5.4.2. Header Protection Sample 5.4.2. Header Protection Sample
The header protection algorithm uses both the header protection key The header protection algorithm uses both the header protection key
and a sample of the ciphertext from the packet Payload field. and a sample of the ciphertext from the packet Payload field.
The same number of bytes are always sampled, but an allowance needs The same number of bytes are always sampled, but an allowance needs
to be made for the endpoint removing protection, which will not know to be made for the removal of protection by a receiving endpoint,
the length of the Packet Number field. The sample of ciphertext is which will not know the length of the Packet Number field. The
taken starting from an offset of 4 bytes after the start of the sample of ciphertext is taken starting from an offset of 4 bytes
Packet Number field. That is, in sampling packet ciphertext for after the start of the Packet Number field. That is, in sampling
header protection, the Packet Number field is assumed to be 4 bytes packet ciphertext for header protection, the Packet Number field is
long (its maximum possible encoded length). assumed to be 4 bytes long (its maximum possible encoded length).
An endpoint MUST discard packets that are not long enough to contain An endpoint MUST discard packets that are not long enough to contain
a complete sample. a complete sample.
To ensure that sufficient data is available for sampling, packets are To ensure that sufficient data is available for sampling, packets are
padded so that the combined lengths of the encoded packet number and padded so that the combined lengths of the encoded packet number and
protected payload is at least 4 bytes longer than the sample required protected payload is at least 4 bytes longer than the sample required
for header protection. The cipher suites defined in [TLS13] - other for header protection. The cipher suites defined in [TLS13] -- other
than TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256, for which a header protection scheme than TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256, for which a header protection scheme
is not defined in this document - have 16-byte expansions and 16-byte is not defined in this document -- have 16-byte expansions and
header protection samples. This results in needing at least 3 bytes 16-byte header protection samples. This results in needing at least
of frames in the unprotected payload if the packet number is encoded 3 bytes of frames in the unprotected payload if the packet number is
on a single byte, or 2 bytes of frames for a 2-byte packet number encoded on a single byte, or 2 bytes of frames for a 2-byte packet
encoding. number encoding.
The sampled ciphertext can be determined by the following pseudocode: The sampled ciphertext can be determined by the following pseudocode:
# pn_offset is the start of the Packet Number field. # pn_offset is the start of the Packet Number field.
sample_offset = pn_offset + 4 sample_offset = pn_offset + 4
sample = packet[sample_offset..sample_offset+sample_length] sample = packet[sample_offset..sample_offset+sample_length]
where the packet number offset of a short header packet can be Where the packet number offset of a short header packet can be
calculated as: calculated as:
pn_offset = 1 + len(connection_id) pn_offset = 1 + len(connection_id)
and the packet number offset of a long header packet can be And the packet number offset of a long header packet can be
calculated as: calculated as:
pn_offset = 7 + len(destination_connection_id) + pn_offset = 7 + len(destination_connection_id) +
len(source_connection_id) + len(source_connection_id) +
len(payload_length) len(payload_length)
if packet_type == Initial: if packet_type == Initial:
pn_offset += len(token_length) + pn_offset += len(token_length) +
len(token) len(token)
For example, for a packet with a short header, an 8-byte connection For example, for a packet with a short header, an 8-byte connection
ID, and protected with AEAD_AES_128_GCM, the sample takes bytes 13 to ID, and protected with AEAD_AES_128_GCM, the sample takes bytes 13 to
28 inclusive (using zero-based indexing). 28 inclusive (using zero-based indexing).
Multiple QUIC packets might be included in the same UDP datagram. Multiple QUIC packets might be included in the same UDP datagram.
Each packet is handled separately. Each packet is handled separately.
5.4.3. AES-Based Header Protection 5.4.3. AES-Based Header Protection
This section defines the packet protection algorithm for This section defines the packet protection algorithm for
AEAD_AES_128_GCM, AEAD_AES_128_CCM, and AEAD_AES_256_GCM. AEAD_AES_128_GCM, AEAD_AES_128_CCM, and AEAD_AES_256_GCM.
AEAD_AES_128_GCM and AEAD_AES_128_CCM use 128-bit AES in electronic AEAD_AES_128_GCM and AEAD_AES_128_CCM use 128-bit AES in Electronic
code-book (ECB) mode. AEAD_AES_256_GCM uses 256-bit AES in ECB mode. Codebook (ECB) mode. AEAD_AES_256_GCM uses 256-bit AES in ECB mode.
AES is defined in [AES]. AES is defined in [AES].
This algorithm samples 16 bytes from the packet ciphertext. This This algorithm samples 16 bytes from the packet ciphertext. This
value is used as the input to AES-ECB. In pseudocode, the header value is used as the input to AES-ECB. In pseudocode, the header
protection function is defined as: protection function is defined as:
header_protection(hp_key, sample): header_protection(hp_key, sample):
mask = AES-ECB(hp_key, sample) mask = AES-ECB(hp_key, sample)
5.4.4. ChaCha20-Based Header Protection 5.4.4. ChaCha20-Based Header Protection
When AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 is in use, header protection uses the raw When AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 is in use, header protection uses the raw
ChaCha20 function as defined in Section 2.4 of [CHACHA]. This uses a ChaCha20 function as defined in Section 2.4 of [CHACHA]. This uses a
256-bit key and 16 bytes sampled from the packet protection output. 256-bit key and 16 bytes sampled from the packet protection output.
The first 4 bytes of the sampled ciphertext are the block counter. A The first 4 bytes of the sampled ciphertext are the block counter. A
ChaCha20 implementation could take a 32-bit integer in place of a ChaCha20 implementation could take a 32-bit integer in place of a
byte sequence, in which case the byte sequence is interpreted as a byte sequence, in which case, the byte sequence is interpreted as a
little-endian value. little-endian value.
The remaining 12 bytes are used as the nonce. A ChaCha20 The remaining 12 bytes are used as the nonce. A ChaCha20
implementation might take an array of three 32-bit integers in place implementation might take an array of three 32-bit integers in place
of a byte sequence, in which case the nonce bytes are interpreted as of a byte sequence, in which case, the nonce bytes are interpreted as
a sequence of 32-bit little-endian integers. a sequence of 32-bit little-endian integers.
The encryption mask is produced by invoking ChaCha20 to protect 5 The encryption mask is produced by invoking ChaCha20 to protect 5
zero bytes. In pseudocode, the header protection function is defined zero bytes. In pseudocode, the header protection function is defined
as: as:
header_protection(hp_key, sample): header_protection(hp_key, sample):
counter = sample[0..3] counter = sample[0..3]
nonce = sample[4..15] nonce = sample[4..15]
mask = ChaCha20(hp_key, counter, nonce, {0,0,0,0,0}) mask = ChaCha20(hp_key, counter, nonce, {0,0,0,0,0})
5.5. Receiving Protected Packets 5.5. Receiving Protected Packets
Once an endpoint successfully receives a packet with a given packet Once an endpoint successfully receives a packet with a given packet
number, it MUST discard all packets in the same packet number space number, it MUST discard all packets in the same packet number space
with higher packet numbers if they cannot be successfully unprotected with higher packet numbers if they cannot be successfully unprotected
with either the same key, or - if there is a key update - a with either the same key, or -- if there is a key update -- a
subsequent packet protection key; see Section 6. Similarly, a packet subsequent packet protection key; see Section 6. Similarly, a packet
that appears to trigger a key update, but cannot be unprotected that appears to trigger a key update but cannot be unprotected
successfully MUST be discarded. successfully MUST be discarded.
Failure to unprotect a packet does not necessarily indicate the Failure to unprotect a packet does not necessarily indicate the
existence of a protocol error in a peer or an attack. The truncated existence of a protocol error in a peer or an attack. The truncated
packet number encoding used in QUIC can cause packet numbers to be packet number encoding used in QUIC can cause packet numbers to be
decoded incorrectly if they are delayed significantly. decoded incorrectly if they are delayed significantly.
5.6. Use of 0-RTT Keys 5.6. Use of 0-RTT Keys
If 0-RTT keys are available (see Section 4.6.1), the lack of replay If 0-RTT keys are available (see Section 4.6.1), the lack of replay
skipping to change at page 33, line 22 skipping to change at page 32, line 22
if it receives an indication that 0-RTT data has been rejected. if it receives an indication that 0-RTT data has been rejected.
A server MUST NOT use 0-RTT keys to protect packets; it uses 1-RTT A server MUST NOT use 0-RTT keys to protect packets; it uses 1-RTT
keys to protect acknowledgments of 0-RTT packets. A client MUST NOT keys to protect acknowledgments of 0-RTT packets. A client MUST NOT
attempt to decrypt 0-RTT packets it receives and instead MUST discard attempt to decrypt 0-RTT packets it receives and instead MUST discard
them. them.
Once a client has installed 1-RTT keys, it MUST NOT send any more Once a client has installed 1-RTT keys, it MUST NOT send any more
0-RTT packets. 0-RTT packets.
Note: 0-RTT data can be acknowledged by the server as it receives Note: 0-RTT data can be acknowledged by the server as it receives
it, but any packets containing acknowledgments of 0-RTT data it, but any packets containing acknowledgments of 0-RTT data
cannot have packet protection removed by the client until the TLS cannot have packet protection removed by the client until the TLS
handshake is complete. The 1-RTT keys necessary to remove packet handshake is complete. The 1-RTT keys necessary to remove packet
protection cannot be derived until the client receives all server protection cannot be derived until the client receives all server
handshake messages. handshake messages.
5.7. Receiving Out-of-Order Protected Packets 5.7. Receiving Out-of-Order Protected Packets
Due to reordering and loss, protected packets might be received by an Due to reordering and loss, protected packets might be received by an
endpoint before the final TLS handshake messages are received. A endpoint before the final TLS handshake messages are received. A
skipping to change at page 34, line 14 skipping to change at page 33, line 14
Therefore, the server's use of 1-RTT keys before the handshake is Therefore, the server's use of 1-RTT keys before the handshake is
complete is limited to sending data. A server MUST NOT process complete is limited to sending data. A server MUST NOT process
incoming 1-RTT protected packets before the TLS handshake is incoming 1-RTT protected packets before the TLS handshake is
complete. Because sending acknowledgments indicates that all frames complete. Because sending acknowledgments indicates that all frames
in a packet have been processed, a server cannot send acknowledgments in a packet have been processed, a server cannot send acknowledgments
for 1-RTT packets until the TLS handshake is complete. Received for 1-RTT packets until the TLS handshake is complete. Received
packets protected with 1-RTT keys MAY be stored and later decrypted packets protected with 1-RTT keys MAY be stored and later decrypted
and used once the handshake is complete. and used once the handshake is complete.
Note: TLS implementations might provide all 1-RTT secrets prior to Note: TLS implementations might provide all 1-RTT secrets prior to
handshake completion. Even where QUIC implementations have 1-RTT handshake completion. Even where QUIC implementations have 1-RTT
read keys, those keys are not to be used prior to completing the read keys, those keys are not to be used prior to completing the
handshake. handshake.
The requirement for the server to wait for the client Finished The requirement for the server to wait for the client Finished
message creates a dependency on that message being delivered. A message creates a dependency on that message being delivered. A
client can avoid the potential for head-of-line blocking that this client can avoid the potential for head-of-line blocking that this
implies by sending its 1-RTT packets coalesced with a Handshake implies by sending its 1-RTT packets coalesced with a Handshake
packet containing a copy of the CRYPTO frame that carries the packet containing a copy of the CRYPTO frame that carries the
Finished message, until one of the Handshake packets is acknowledged. Finished message, until one of the Handshake packets is acknowledged.
skipping to change at page 34, line 38 skipping to change at page 33, line 38
receiving a TLS ClientHello. The server MAY retain these packets for receiving a TLS ClientHello. The server MAY retain these packets for
later decryption in anticipation of receiving a ClientHello. later decryption in anticipation of receiving a ClientHello.
A client generally receives 1-RTT keys at the same time as the A client generally receives 1-RTT keys at the same time as the
handshake completes. Even if it has 1-RTT secrets, a client MUST NOT handshake completes. Even if it has 1-RTT secrets, a client MUST NOT
process incoming 1-RTT protected packets before the TLS handshake is process incoming 1-RTT protected packets before the TLS handshake is
complete. complete.
5.8. Retry Packet Integrity 5.8. Retry Packet Integrity
Retry packets (see the Retry Packet section of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]) Retry packets (see Section 17.2.5 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]) carry a Retry
carry a Retry Integrity Tag that provides two properties: it allows Integrity Tag that provides two properties: it allows the discarding
discarding packets that have accidentally been corrupted by the of packets that have accidentally been corrupted by the network, and
network; only an entity that observes an Initial packet can send a only an entity that observes an Initial packet can send a valid Retry
valid Retry packet. packet.
The Retry Integrity Tag is a 128-bit field that is computed as the The Retry Integrity Tag is a 128-bit field that is computed as the
output of AEAD_AES_128_GCM ([AEAD]) used with the following inputs: output of AEAD_AES_128_GCM [AEAD] used with the following inputs:
o The secret key, K, is 128 bits equal to o The secret key, K, is 128 bits equal to
0xbe0c690b9f66575a1d766b54e368c84e. 0xbe0c690b9f66575a1d766b54e368c84e.
o The nonce, N, is 96 bits equal to 0x461599d35d632bf2239825bb. o The nonce, N, is 96 bits equal to 0x461599d35d632bf2239825bb.
o The plaintext, P, is empty. o The plaintext, P, is empty.
o The associated data, A, is the contents of the Retry Pseudo- o The associated data, A, is the contents of the Retry Pseudo-
Packet, as illustrated in Figure 8: Packet, as illustrated in Figure 8:
skipping to change at page 35, line 31 skipping to change at page 34, line 31
DCID Len (8), DCID Len (8),
Destination Connection ID (0..160), Destination Connection ID (0..160),
SCID Len (8), SCID Len (8),
Source Connection ID (0..160), Source Connection ID (0..160),
Retry Token (..), Retry Token (..),
} }
Figure 8: Retry Pseudo-Packet Figure 8: Retry Pseudo-Packet
The Retry Pseudo-Packet is not sent over the wire. It is computed by The Retry Pseudo-Packet is not sent over the wire. It is computed by
taking the transmitted Retry packet, removing the Retry Integrity Tag taking the transmitted Retry packet, removing the Retry Integrity
and prepending the two following fields: Tag, and prepending the two following fields:
ODCID Length: The ODCID Length field contains the length in bytes of ODCID Length: The ODCID Length field contains the length in bytes of
the Original Destination Connection ID field that follows it, the Original Destination Connection ID field that follows it,
encoded as an 8-bit unsigned integer. encoded as an 8-bit unsigned integer.
Original Destination Connection ID: The Original Destination Original Destination Connection ID: The Original Destination
Connection ID contains the value of the Destination Connection ID Connection ID contains the value of the Destination Connection ID
from the Initial packet that this Retry is in response to. The from the Initial packet that this Retry is in response to. The
length of this field is given in ODCID Length. The presence of length of this field is given in ODCID Length. The presence of
this field ensures that a valid Retry packet can only be sent by this field ensures that a valid Retry packet can only be sent by
skipping to change at page 36, line 19 skipping to change at page 35, line 19
the change. An endpoint that notices a changed Key Phase bit updates the change. An endpoint that notices a changed Key Phase bit updates
keys and decrypts the packet that contains the changed value. keys and decrypts the packet that contains the changed value.
Initiating a key update results in both endpoints updating keys. Initiating a key update results in both endpoints updating keys.
This differs from TLS where endpoints can update keys independently. This differs from TLS where endpoints can update keys independently.
This mechanism replaces the key update mechanism of TLS, which relies This mechanism replaces the key update mechanism of TLS, which relies
on KeyUpdate messages sent using 1-RTT encryption keys. Endpoints on KeyUpdate messages sent using 1-RTT encryption keys. Endpoints
MUST NOT send a TLS KeyUpdate message. Endpoints MUST treat the MUST NOT send a TLS KeyUpdate message. Endpoints MUST treat the
receipt of a TLS KeyUpdate message as a connection error of type receipt of a TLS KeyUpdate message as a connection error of type
0x10a, equivalent to a fatal TLS alert of unexpected_message; see 0x010a, equivalent to a fatal TLS alert of unexpected_message; see
Section 4.8. Section 4.8.
Figure 9 shows a key update process, where the initial set of keys Figure 9 shows a key update process, where the initial set of keys
used (identified with @M) are replaced by updated keys (identified used (identified with @M) are replaced by updated keys (identified
with @N). The value of the Key Phase bit is indicated in brackets with @N). The value of the Key Phase bit is indicated in brackets
[]. [].
Initiating Peer Responding Peer Initiating Peer Responding Peer
@M [0] QUIC Packets @M [0] QUIC Packets
skipping to change at page 37, line 31 skipping to change at page 36, line 31
The endpoint toggles the value of the Key Phase bit and uses the The endpoint toggles the value of the Key Phase bit and uses the
updated key and IV to protect all subsequent packets. updated key and IV to protect all subsequent packets.
An endpoint MUST NOT initiate a key update prior to having confirmed An endpoint MUST NOT initiate a key update prior to having confirmed
the handshake (Section 4.1.2). An endpoint MUST NOT initiate a the handshake (Section 4.1.2). An endpoint MUST NOT initiate a
subsequent key update unless it has received an acknowledgment for a subsequent key update unless it has received an acknowledgment for a
packet that was sent protected with keys from the current key phase. packet that was sent protected with keys from the current key phase.
This ensures that keys are available to both peers before another key This ensures that keys are available to both peers before another key
update can be initiated. This can be implemented by tracking the update can be initiated. This can be implemented by tracking the
lowest packet number sent with each key phase, and the highest lowest packet number sent with each key phase and the highest
acknowledged packet number in the 1-RTT space: once the latter is acknowledged packet number in the 1-RTT space: once the latter is
higher than or equal to the former, another key update can be higher than or equal to the former, another key update can be
initiated. initiated.
Note: Keys of packets other than the 1-RTT packets are never Note: Keys of packets other than the 1-RTT packets are never
updated; their keys are derived solely from the TLS handshake updated; their keys are derived solely from the TLS handshake
state. state.
The endpoint that initiates a key update also updates the keys that The endpoint that initiates a key update also updates the keys that
it uses for receiving packets. These keys will be needed to process it uses for receiving packets. These keys will be needed to process
packets the peer sends after updating. packets the peer sends after updating.
An endpoint MUST retain old keys until it has successfully An endpoint MUST retain old keys until it has successfully
unprotected a packet sent using the new keys. An endpoint SHOULD unprotected a packet sent using the new keys. An endpoint SHOULD
retain old keys for some time after unprotecting a packet sent using retain old keys for some time after unprotecting a packet sent using
skipping to change at page 38, line 25 skipping to change at page 37, line 25
If a packet is successfully processed using the next key and IV, then If a packet is successfully processed using the next key and IV, then
the peer has initiated a key update. The endpoint MUST update its the peer has initiated a key update. The endpoint MUST update its
send keys to the corresponding key phase in response, as described in send keys to the corresponding key phase in response, as described in
Section 6.1. Sending keys MUST be updated before sending an Section 6.1. Sending keys MUST be updated before sending an
acknowledgment for the packet that was received with updated keys. acknowledgment for the packet that was received with updated keys.
By acknowledging the packet that triggered the key update in a packet By acknowledging the packet that triggered the key update in a packet
protected with the updated keys, the endpoint signals that the key protected with the updated keys, the endpoint signals that the key
update is complete. update is complete.
An endpoint can defer sending the packet or acknowledgment according An endpoint can defer sending the packet or acknowledgment according
to its normal packet sending behaviour; it is not necessary to to its normal packet sending behavior; it is not necessary to
immediately generate a packet in response to a key update. The next immediately generate a packet in response to a key update. The next
packet sent by the endpoint will use the updated keys. The next packet sent by the endpoint will use the updated keys. The next
packet that contains an acknowledgment will cause the key update to packet that contains an acknowledgment will cause the key update to
be completed. If an endpoint detects a second update before it has be completed. If an endpoint detects a second update before it has
sent any packets with updated keys containing an acknowledgment for sent any packets with updated keys containing an acknowledgment for
the packet that initiated the key update, it indicates that its peer the packet that initiated the key update, it indicates that its peer
has updated keys twice without awaiting confirmation. An endpoint has updated keys twice without awaiting confirmation. An endpoint
MAY treat such consecutive key updates as a connection error of type MAY treat such consecutive key updates as a connection error of type
KEY_UPDATE_ERROR. KEY_UPDATE_ERROR.
skipping to change at page 38, line 47 skipping to change at page 37, line 47
packet protected with old keys where any acknowledged packet was packet protected with old keys where any acknowledged packet was
protected with newer keys MAY treat that as a connection error of protected with newer keys MAY treat that as a connection error of
type KEY_UPDATE_ERROR. This indicates that a peer has received and type KEY_UPDATE_ERROR. This indicates that a peer has received and
acknowledged a packet that initiates a key update, but has not acknowledged a packet that initiates a key update, but has not
updated keys in response. updated keys in response.
6.3. Timing of Receive Key Generation 6.3. Timing of Receive Key Generation
Endpoints responding to an apparent key update MUST NOT generate a Endpoints responding to an apparent key update MUST NOT generate a
timing side-channel signal that might indicate that the Key Phase bit timing side-channel signal that might indicate that the Key Phase bit
was invalid (see Section 9.4). Endpoints can use dummy packet was invalid (see Section 9.5). Endpoints can use randomized packet
protection keys in place of discarded keys when key updates are not protection keys in place of discarded keys when key updates are not
yet permitted. Using dummy keys will generate no variation in the yet permitted. Using randomized keys ensures that attempting to
timing signal produced by attempting to remove packet protection, and remove packet protection does not result in timing variations, and
results in all packets with an invalid Key Phase bit being rejected. results in packets with an invalid Key Phase bit being rejected.
The process of creating new packet protection keys for receiving The process of creating new packet protection keys for receiving
packets could reveal that a key update has occurred. An endpoint MAY packets could reveal that a key update has occurred. An endpoint MAY
generate new keys as part of packet processing, but this creates a generate new keys as part of packet processing, but this creates a
timing signal that could be used by an attacker to learn when key timing signal that could be used by an attacker to learn when key
updates happen and thus leak the value of the Key Phase bit. updates happen and thus leak the value of the Key Phase bit.
Endpoints are generally expected to have current and next receive Endpoints are generally expected to have current and next receive
packet protection keys available. For a short period after a key packet protection keys available. For a short period after a key
update completes, up to the PTO, endpoints MAY defer generation of update completes, up to the PTO, endpoints MAY defer generation of
the next set of receive packet protection keys. This allows the next set of receive packet protection keys. This allows
endpoints to retain only two sets of receive keys; see Section 6.5. endpoints to retain only two sets of receive keys; see Section 6.5.
Once generated, the next set of packet protection keys SHOULD be Once generated, the next set of packet protection keys SHOULD be
retained, even if the packet that was received was subsequently retained, even if the packet that was received was subsequently
discarded. Packets containing apparent key updates are easy to forge discarded. Packets containing apparent key updates are easy to
and - while the process of key update does not require significant forge, and while the process of key update does not require
effort - triggering this process could be used by an attacker for significant effort, triggering this process could be used by an
DoS. attacker for DoS.
For this reason, endpoints MUST be able to retain two sets of packet For this reason, endpoints MUST be able to retain two sets of packet
protection keys for receiving packets: the current and the next. protection keys for receiving packets: the current and the next.
Retaining the previous keys in addition to these might improve Retaining the previous keys in addition to these might improve
performance, but this is not essential. performance, but this is not essential.
6.4. Sending with Updated Keys 6.4. Sending with Updated Keys
An endpoint never sends packets that are protected with old keys. An endpoint never sends packets that are protected with old keys.
Only the current keys are used. Keys used for protecting packets can Only the current keys are used. Keys used for protecting packets can
skipping to change at page 39, line 50 skipping to change at page 38, line 50
6.5. Receiving with Different Keys 6.5. Receiving with Different Keys
For receiving packets during a key update, packets protected with For receiving packets during a key update, packets protected with
older keys might arrive if they were delayed by the network. older keys might arrive if they were delayed by the network.
Retaining old packet protection keys allows these packets to be Retaining old packet protection keys allows these packets to be
successfully processed. successfully processed.
As packets protected with keys from the next key phase use the same As packets protected with keys from the next key phase use the same
Key Phase value as those protected with keys from the previous key Key Phase value as those protected with keys from the previous key
phase, it is necessary to distinguish between the two, if packets phase, it is necessary to distinguish between the two if packets
protected with old keys are to be processed. This can be done using protected with old keys are to be processed. This can be done using
packet numbers. A recovered packet number that is lower than any packet numbers. A recovered packet number that is lower than any
packet number from the current key phase uses the previous packet packet number from the current key phase uses the previous packet
protection keys; a recovered packet number that is higher than any protection keys; a recovered packet number that is higher than any
packet number from the current key phase requires the use of the next packet number from the current key phase requires the use of the next
packet protection keys. packet protection keys.
Some care is necessary to ensure that any process for selecting Some care is necessary to ensure that any process for selecting
between previous, current, and next packet protection keys does not between previous, current, and next packet protection keys does not
expose a timing side channel that might reveal which keys were used expose a timing side channel that might reveal which keys were used
skipping to change at page 40, line 23 skipping to change at page 39, line 23
Alternatively, endpoints can retain only two sets of packet Alternatively, endpoints can retain only two sets of packet
protection keys, swapping previous for next after enough time has protection keys, swapping previous for next after enough time has
passed to allow for reordering in the network. In this case, the Key passed to allow for reordering in the network. In this case, the Key
Phase bit alone can be used to select keys. Phase bit alone can be used to select keys.
An endpoint MAY allow a period of approximately the Probe Timeout An endpoint MAY allow a period of approximately the Probe Timeout
(PTO; see [QUIC-RECOVERY]) after promoting the next set of receive (PTO; see [QUIC-RECOVERY]) after promoting the next set of receive
keys to be current before it creates the subsequent set of packet keys to be current before it creates the subsequent set of packet
protection keys. These updated keys MAY replace the previous keys at protection keys. These updated keys MAY replace the previous keys at
that time. With the caveat that PTO is a subjective measure - that that time. With the caveat that PTO is a subjective measure -- that
is, a peer could have a different view of the RTT - this time is is, a peer could have a different view of the RTT -- this time is
expected to be long enough that any reordered packets would be expected to be long enough that any reordered packets would be
declared lost by a peer even if they were acknowledged and short declared lost by a peer even if they were acknowledged and short
enough to allow a peer to initiate further key updates. enough to allow a peer to initiate further key updates.
Endpoints need to allow for the possibility that a peer might not be Endpoints need to allow for the possibility that a peer might not be
able to decrypt packets that initiate a key update during the period able to decrypt packets that initiate a key update during the period
when the peer retains old keys. Endpoints SHOULD wait three times when the peer retains old keys. Endpoints SHOULD wait three times
the PTO before initiating a key update after receiving an the PTO before initiating a key update after receiving an
acknowledgment that confirms that the previous key update was acknowledgment that confirms that the previous key update was
received. Failing to allow sufficient time could lead to packets received. Failing to allow sufficient time could lead to packets
skipping to change at page 42, line 16 skipping to change at page 41, line 16
confidentiality and integrity limits; see Appendix B for details. confidentiality and integrity limits; see Appendix B for details.
Future analyses and specifications MAY relax confidentiality or Future analyses and specifications MAY relax confidentiality or
integrity limits for an AEAD. integrity limits for an AEAD.
Any TLS cipher suite that is specified for use with QUIC MUST define Any TLS cipher suite that is specified for use with QUIC MUST define
limits on the use of the associated AEAD function that preserves limits on the use of the associated AEAD function that preserves
margins for confidentiality and integrity. That is, limits MUST be margins for confidentiality and integrity. That is, limits MUST be
specified for the number of packets that can be authenticated and for specified for the number of packets that can be authenticated and for
the number of packets that can fail authentication. Providing a the number of packets that can fail authentication. Providing a
reference to any analysis upon which values are based - and any reference to any analysis upon which values are based -- and any
assumptions used in that analysis - allows limits to be adapted to assumptions used in that analysis -- allows limits to be adapted to
varying usage conditions. varying usage conditions.
6.7. Key Update Error Code 6.7. Key Update Error Code
The KEY_UPDATE_ERROR error code (0xe) is used to signal errors The KEY_UPDATE_ERROR error code (0x0e) is used to signal errors
related to key updates. related to key updates.
7. Security of Initial Messages 7. Security of Initial Messages
Initial packets are not protected with a secret key, so they are Initial packets are not protected with a secret key, so they are
subject to potential tampering by an attacker. QUIC provides subject to potential tampering by an attacker. QUIC provides
protection against attackers that cannot read packets, but does not protection against attackers that cannot read packets but does not
attempt to provide additional protection against attacks where the attempt to provide additional protection against attacks where the
attacker can observe and inject packets. Some forms of tampering - attacker can observe and inject packets. Some forms of tampering --
such as modifying the TLS messages themselves - are detectable, but such as modifying the TLS messages themselves -- are detectable, but
some - such as modifying ACKs - are not. some -- such as modifying ACKs -- are not.
For example, an attacker could inject a packet containing an ACK For example, an attacker could inject a packet containing an ACK
frame that makes it appear that a packet had not been received or to frame to make it appear that a packet had not been received or to
create a false impression of the state of the connection (e.g., by create a false impression of the state of the connection (e.g., by
modifying the ACK Delay). Note that such a packet could cause a modifying the ACK Delay). Note that such a packet could cause a
legitimate packet to be dropped as a duplicate. Implementations legitimate packet to be dropped as a duplicate. Implementations
SHOULD use caution in relying on any data that is contained in SHOULD use caution in relying on any data that is contained in
Initial packets that is not otherwise authenticated. Initial packets that is not otherwise authenticated.
It is also possible for the attacker to tamper with data that is It is also possible for the attacker to tamper with data that is
carried in Handshake packets, but because that tampering requires carried in Handshake packets, but because that sort of tampering
modifying TLS handshake messages, that tampering will cause the TLS requires modifying TLS handshake messages, any such tampering will
handshake to fail. cause the TLS handshake to fail.
8. QUIC-Specific Adjustments to the TLS Handshake 8. QUIC-Specific Adjustments to the TLS Handshake
Certain aspects of the TLS handshake are different when used with Certain aspects of the TLS handshake are different when used with
QUIC. QUIC.
QUIC also requires additional features from TLS. In addition to QUIC also requires additional features from TLS. In addition to
negotiation of cryptographic parameters, the TLS handshake carries negotiation of cryptographic parameters, the TLS handshake carries
and authenticates values for QUIC transport parameters. and authenticates values for QUIC transport parameters.
8.1. Protocol Negotiation 8.1. Protocol Negotiation
QUIC requires that the cryptographic handshake provide authenticated QUIC requires that the cryptographic handshake provide authenticated
protocol negotiation. TLS uses Application Layer Protocol protocol negotiation. TLS uses Application-Layer Protocol
Negotiation ([ALPN]) to select an application protocol. Unless Negotiation [ALPN] to select an application protocol. Unless another
another mechanism is used for agreeing on an application protocol, mechanism is used for agreeing on an application protocol, endpoints
endpoints MUST use ALPN for this purpose. MUST use ALPN for this purpose.
When using ALPN, endpoints MUST immediately close a connection (see When using ALPN, endpoints MUST immediately close a connection (see
Section 10.2 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]) with a no_application_protocol TLS Section 10.2 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]) with a no_application_protocol TLS
alert (QUIC error code 0x178; see Section 4.8) if an application alert (QUIC error code 0x0178; see Section 4.8) if an application
protocol is not negotiated. While [ALPN] only specifies that servers protocol is not negotiated. While [ALPN] only specifies that servers
use this alert, QUIC clients MUST use error 0x178 to terminate a use this alert, QUIC clients MUST use error 0x0178 to terminate a
connection when ALPN negotiation fails. connection when ALPN negotiation fails.
An application protocol MAY restrict the QUIC versions that it can An application protocol MAY restrict the QUIC versions that it can
operate over. Servers MUST select an application protocol compatible operate over. Servers MUST select an application protocol compatible
with the QUIC version that the client has selected. The server MUST with the QUIC version that the client has selected. The server MUST
treat the inability to select a compatible application protocol as a treat the inability to select a compatible application protocol as a
connection error of type 0x178 (no_application_protocol). Similarly, connection error of type 0x0178 (no_application_protocol).
a client MUST treat the selection of an incompatible application Similarly, a client MUST treat the selection of an incompatible
protocol by a server as a connection error of type 0x178. application protocol by a server as a connection error of type
0x0178.
8.2. QUIC Transport Parameters Extension 8.2. QUIC Transport Parameters Extension
QUIC transport parameters are carried in a TLS extension. Different QUIC transport parameters are carried in a TLS extension. Different
versions of QUIC might define a different method for negotiating versions of QUIC might define a different method for negotiating
transport configuration. transport configuration.
Including transport parameters in the TLS handshake provides Including transport parameters in the TLS handshake provides
integrity protection for these values. integrity protection for these values.
skipping to change at page 44, line 5 skipping to change at page 43, line 6
The extension_data field of the quic_transport_parameters extension The extension_data field of the quic_transport_parameters extension
contains a value that is defined by the version of QUIC that is in contains a value that is defined by the version of QUIC that is in
use. use.
The quic_transport_parameters extension is carried in the ClientHello The quic_transport_parameters extension is carried in the ClientHello
and the EncryptedExtensions messages during the handshake. Endpoints and the EncryptedExtensions messages during the handshake. Endpoints
MUST send the quic_transport_parameters extension; endpoints that MUST send the quic_transport_parameters extension; endpoints that
receive ClientHello or EncryptedExtensions messages without the receive ClientHello or EncryptedExtensions messages without the
quic_transport_parameters extension MUST close the connection with an quic_transport_parameters extension MUST close the connection with an
error of type 0x16d (equivalent to a fatal TLS missing_extension error of type 0x016d (equivalent to a fatal TLS missing_extension
alert, see Section 4.8). alert, see Section 4.8).
Transport parameters become available prior to the completion of the Transport parameters become available prior to the completion of the
handshake. A server might use these values earlier than handshake handshake. A server might use these values earlier than handshake
completion. However, the value of transport parameters is not completion. However, the value of transport parameters is not
authenticated until the handshake completes, so any use of these authenticated until the handshake completes, so any use of these
parameters cannot depend on their authenticity. Any tampering with parameters cannot depend on their authenticity. Any tampering with
transport parameters will cause the handshake to fail. transport parameters will cause the handshake to fail.
Endpoints MUST NOT send this extension in a TLS connection that does Endpoints MUST NOT send this extension in a TLS connection that does
skipping to change at page 45, line 38 skipping to change at page 44, line 40
Endpoints MUST implement and use the replay protections described in Endpoints MUST implement and use the replay protections described in
[TLS13], however it is recognized that these protections are [TLS13], however it is recognized that these protections are
imperfect. Therefore, additional consideration of the risk of replay imperfect. Therefore, additional consideration of the risk of replay
is needed. is needed.
QUIC is not vulnerable to replay attack, except via the application QUIC is not vulnerable to replay attack, except via the application
protocol information it might carry. The management of QUIC protocol protocol information it might carry. The management of QUIC protocol
state based on the frame types defined in [QUIC-TRANSPORT] is not state based on the frame types defined in [QUIC-TRANSPORT] is not
vulnerable to replay. Processing of QUIC frames is idempotent and vulnerable to replay. Processing of QUIC frames is idempotent and
cannot result in invalid connection states if frames are replayed, cannot result in invalid connection states if frames are replayed,
reordered or lost. QUIC connections do not produce effects that last reordered, or lost. QUIC connections do not produce effects that
beyond the lifetime of the connection, except for those produced by last beyond the lifetime of the connection, except for those produced
the application protocol that QUIC serves. by the application protocol that QUIC serves.
Note: TLS session tickets and address validation tokens are used to TLS session tickets and address validation tokens are used to carry
carry QUIC configuration information between connections. QUIC configuration information between connections, specifically, to
Specifically, to enable a server to efficiently recover state that enable a server to efficiently recover state that is used in
is used in connection establishment and address validation. These connection establishment and address validation. These MUST NOT be
MUST NOT be used to communicate application semantics between used to communicate application semantics between endpoints; clients
endpoints; clients MUST treat them as opaque values. The MUST treat them as opaque values. The potential for reuse of these
potential for reuse of these tokens means that they require tokens means that they require stronger protections against replay.
stronger protections against replay.
A server that accepts 0-RTT on a connection incurs a higher cost than A server that accepts 0-RTT on a connection incurs a higher cost than
accepting a connection without 0-RTT. This includes higher accepting a connection without 0-RTT. This includes higher
processing and computation costs. Servers need to consider the processing and computation costs. Servers need to consider the
probability of replay and all associated costs when accepting 0-RTT. probability of replay and all associated costs when accepting 0-RTT.
Ultimately, the responsibility for managing the risks of replay Ultimately, the responsibility for managing the risks of replay
attacks with 0-RTT lies with an application protocol. An application attacks with 0-RTT lies with an application protocol. An application
protocol that uses QUIC MUST describe how the protocol uses 0-RTT and protocol that uses QUIC MUST describe how the protocol uses 0-RTT and
the measures that are employed to protect against replay attack. An the measures that are employed to protect against replay attack. An
analysis of replay risk needs to consider all QUIC protocol features analysis of replay risk needs to consider all QUIC protocol features
that carry application semantics. that carry application semantics.
Disabling 0-RTT entirely is the most effective defense against replay Disabling 0-RTT entirely is the most effective defense against replay
attack. attack.
QUIC extensions MUST describe how replay attacks affect their QUIC extensions MUST either describe how replay attacks affect their
operation, or prohibit their use in 0-RTT. Application protocols operation or prohibit the use of the extension in 0-RTT. Application
MUST either prohibit the use of extensions that carry application protocols MUST either prohibit the use of extensions that carry
semantics in 0-RTT or provide replay mitigation strategies. application semantics in 0-RTT or provide replay mitigation
strategies.
9.3. Packet Reflection Attack Mitigation 9.3. Packet Reflection Attack Mitigation
A small ClientHello that results in a large block of handshake A small ClientHello that results in a large block of handshake
messages from a server can be used in packet reflection attacks to messages from a server can be used in packet reflection attacks to
amplify the traffic generated by an attacker. amplify the traffic generated by an attacker.
QUIC includes three defenses against this attack. First, the packet QUIC includes three defenses against this attack. First, the packet
containing a ClientHello MUST be padded to a minimum size. Second, containing a ClientHello MUST be padded to a minimum size. Second,
if responding to an unverified source address, the server is if responding to an unverified source address, the server is
skipping to change at page 46, line 48 skipping to change at page 46, line 4
[NAN] analyzes authenticated encryption algorithms that provide nonce [NAN] analyzes authenticated encryption algorithms that provide nonce
privacy, referred to as "Hide Nonce" (HN) transforms. The general privacy, referred to as "Hide Nonce" (HN) transforms. The general
header protection construction in this document is one of those header protection construction in this document is one of those
algorithms (HN1). Header protection is applied after the packet algorithms (HN1). Header protection is applied after the packet
protection AEAD, sampling a set of bytes ("sample") from the AEAD protection AEAD, sampling a set of bytes ("sample") from the AEAD
output and encrypting the header field using a pseudorandom function output and encrypting the header field using a pseudorandom function
(PRF) as follows: (PRF) as follows:
protected_field = field XOR PRF(hp_key, sample) protected_field = field XOR PRF(hp_key, sample)
The header protection variants in this document use a pseudorandom The header protection variants in this document use a pseudorandom
permutation (PRP) in place of a generic PRF. However, since all PRPs permutation (PRP) in place of a generic PRF. However, since all PRPs
are also PRFs [IMC], these variants do not deviate from the HN1 are also PRFs [IMC], these variants do not deviate from the HN1
construction. construction.
As "hp_key" is distinct from the packet protection key, it follows As "hp_key" is distinct from the packet protection key, it follows
that header protection achieves AE2 security as defined in [NAN] and that header protection achieves AE2 security as defined in [NAN] and
therefore guarantees privacy of "field", the protected packet header. therefore guarantees privacy of "field", the protected packet header.
Future header protection variants based on this construction MUST use Future header protection variants based on this construction MUST use
a PRF to ensure equivalent security guarantees. a PRF to ensure equivalent security guarantees.
Use of the same key and ciphertext sample more than once risks Use of the same key and ciphertext sample more than once risks
compromising header protection. Protecting two different headers compromising header protection. Protecting two different headers
with the same key and ciphertext sample reveals the exclusive OR of with the same key and ciphertext sample reveals the exclusive OR of
the protected fields. Assuming that the AEAD acts as a PRF, if L the protected fields. Assuming that the AEAD acts as a PRF, if L
bits are sampled, the odds of two ciphertext samples being identical bits are sampled, the odds of two ciphertext samples being identical
approach 2^(-L/2), that is, the birthday bound. For the algorithms approach 2^-L/2, that is, the birthday bound. For the algorithms
described in this document, that probability is one in 2^64. described in this document, that probability is one in 2^64.
To prevent an attacker from modifying packet headers, the header is To prevent an attacker from modifying packet headers, the header is
transitively authenticated using packet protection; the entire packet transitively authenticated using packet protection; the entire packet
header is part of the authenticated additional data. Protected header is part of the authenticated additional data. Protected
fields that are falsified or modified can only be detected once the fields that are falsified or modified can only be detected once the
packet protection is removed. packet protection is removed.
9.5. Header Protection Timing Side-Channels 9.5. Header Protection Timing Side Channels
An attacker could guess values for packet numbers or Key Phase and An attacker could guess values for packet numbers or Key Phase and
have an endpoint confirm guesses through timing side channels. have an endpoint confirm guesses through timing side channels.
Similarly, guesses for the packet number length can be tried and Similarly, guesses for the packet number length can be tried and
exposed. If the recipient of a packet discards packets with exposed. If the recipient of a packet discards packets with
duplicate packet numbers without attempting to remove packet duplicate packet numbers without attempting to remove packet
protection they could reveal through timing side-channels that the protection, they could reveal through timing side channels that the
packet number matches a received packet. For authentication to be packet number matches a received packet. For authentication to be
free from side-channels, the entire process of header protection free from side channels, the entire process of header protection
removal, packet number recovery, and packet protection removal MUST removal, packet number recovery, and packet protection removal MUST
be applied together without timing and other side-channels. be applied together without timing and other side channels.
For the sending of packets, construction and protection of packet For the sending of packets, construction and protection of packet
payloads and packet numbers MUST be free from side-channels that payloads and packet numbers MUST be free from side channels that
would reveal the packet number or its encoded size. would reveal the packet number or its encoded size.
During a key update, the time taken to generate new keys could reveal During a key update, the time taken to generate new keys could reveal
through timing side-channels that a key update has occurred. through timing side channels that a key update has occurred.
Alternatively, where an attacker injects packets this side-channel Alternatively, where an attacker injects packets, this side channel
could reveal the value of the Key Phase on injected packets. After could reveal the value of the Key Phase on injected packets. After
receiving a key update, an endpoint SHOULD generate and save the next receiving a key update, an endpoint SHOULD generate and save the next
set of receive packet protection keys, as described in Section 6.3. set of receive packet protection keys, as described in Section 6.3.
By generating new keys before a key update is received, receipt of By generating new keys before a key update is received, receipt of
packets will not create timing signals that leak the value of the Key packets will not create timing signals that leak the value of the Key
Phase. Phase.
This depends on not doing this key generation during packet This depends on not doing this key generation during packet
processing and it can require that endpoints maintain three sets of processing, and it can require that endpoints maintain three sets of
packet protection keys for receiving: for the previous key phase, for packet protection keys for receiving: for the previous key phase, for
the current key phase, and for the next key phase. Endpoints can the current key phase, and for the next key phase. Endpoints can
instead choose to defer generation of the next receive packet instead choose to defer generation of the next receive packet
protection keys until they discard old keys so that only two sets of protection keys until they discard old keys so that only two sets of
receive keys need to be retained at any point in time. receive keys need to be retained at any point in time.
9.6. Key Diversity 9.6. Key Diversity
In using TLS, the central key schedule of TLS is used. As a result In using TLS, the central key schedule of TLS is used. As a result
of the TLS handshake messages being integrated into the calculation of the TLS handshake messages being integrated into the calculation
of secrets, the inclusion of the QUIC transport parameters extension of secrets, the inclusion of the QUIC transport parameters extension
ensures that handshake and 1-RTT keys are not the same as those that ensures that the handshake and 1-RTT keys are not the same as those
might be produced by a server running TLS over TCP. To avoid the that might be produced by a server running TLS over TCP. To avoid
possibility of cross-protocol key synchronization, additional the possibility of cross-protocol key synchronization, additional
measures are provided to improve key separation. measures are provided to improve key separation.
The QUIC packet protection keys and IVs are derived using a different The QUIC packet protection keys and IVs are derived using a different
label than the equivalent keys in TLS. label than the equivalent keys in TLS.
To preserve this separation, a new version of QUIC SHOULD define new To preserve this separation, a new version of QUIC SHOULD define new
labels for key derivation for packet protection key and IV, plus the labels for key derivation for packet protection key and IV, plus the
header protection keys. This version of QUIC uses the string "quic". header protection keys. This version of QUIC uses the string "quic".
Other versions can use a version-specific label in place of that Other versions can use a version-specific label in place of that
string. string.
skipping to change at page 48, line 49 skipping to change at page 47, line 51
QUIC depends on endpoints being able to generate secure random QUIC depends on endpoints being able to generate secure random
numbers, both directly for protocol values such as the connection ID, numbers, both directly for protocol values such as the connection ID,
and transitively via TLS. See [RFC4086] for guidance on secure and transitively via TLS. See [RFC4086] for guidance on secure
random number generation. random number generation.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
IANA has registered a codepoint of 57 (or 0x39) for the IANA has registered a codepoint of 57 (or 0x39) for the
quic_transport_parameters extension (defined in Section 8.2) in the quic_transport_parameters extension (defined in Section 8.2) in the
TLS ExtensionType Values Registry [TLS-REGISTRIES]. "TLS ExtensionType Values" registry [TLS-REGISTRIES].
The Recommended column for this extension is marked Yes. The TLS 1.3 The Recommended column for this extension is marked Yes. The TLS 1.3
Column includes CH and EE. Column includes CH (ClientHello) and EE (EncryptedExtensions).
+-------+---------------------------+-----+-------------+-----------+
| Value | Extension Name | TLS | Recommended | Reference |
| | | 1.3 | | |
+-------+---------------------------+-----+-------------+-----------+
| 57 | quic_transport_parameters | CH, | Y | This |
| | | EE | | document |
+-------+---------------------------+-----+-------------+-----------+
Table 2: TLS ExtensionType Values Registry Entry
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[AEAD] McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated [AEAD] McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated
Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008, Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116>.
[AES] "Advanced encryption standard (AES)", National Institute [AES] "Advanced encryption standard (AES)", National Institute
skipping to change at page 49, line 36 skipping to change at page 48, line 46
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>.
[HKDF] Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand [HKDF] Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand
Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869, Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5869>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5869>.
[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-34 (work and Congestion Control", RFC 9002, DOI 10.17487/RFC9002,
in progress), January 2021. May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9002>.
[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", RFC 9000,
transport-34 (work in progress), January 2021. DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
[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>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
skipping to change at page 50, line 26 skipping to change at page 49, line 42
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8447>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8447>.
[TLS13] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol [TLS13] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[AEBounds] [AEBounds]
Luykx, A. and K. Paterson, "Limits on Authenticated Luykx, A. and K. Paterson, "Limits on Authenticated
Encryption Use in TLS", March 2016, Encryption Use in TLS", August 2017,
<http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/~kp/TLS-AEbounds.pdf>. <https://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/~kp/TLS-AEbounds.pdf>.
[ASCII] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80, [ASCII] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969, RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.
[CCM-ANALYSIS] [CCM-ANALYSIS]
Jonsson, J., "On the Security of CTR + CBC-MAC", Selected Jonsson, J., "On the Security of CTR + CBC-MAC",
Areas in Cryptography pp. 76-93, DOI 10.1007/3-540-36492-7_7, Selected Areas in
DOI 10.1007/3-540-36492-7_7, 2003. Cryptography, SAC 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
vol 2595, pp. 76-93, 2003.
[COMPRESS] [COMPRESS]
Ghedini, A. and V. Vasiliev, "TLS Certificate Ghedini, A. and V. Vasiliev, "TLS Certificate
Compression", draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression-10 Compression", RFC 8879, DOI 10.17487/RFC8879, December
(work in progress), January 2020. 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8879>.
[GCM-MU] Hoang, V., Tessaro, S., and A. Thiruvengadam, "The Multi- [GCM-MU] Hoang, V., Tessaro, S., and A. Thiruvengadam, "The Multi-
user Security of GCM, Revisited: Tight Bounds for Nonce user Security of GCM, Revisited: Tight Bounds for Nonce
Randomization", Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Randomization", DOI 10.1145/3243734.3243816, CCS '18:
Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer
DOI 10.1145/3243734.3243816, January 2018. and Communications Security, pp. 1429-1440, 2018.
[HTTP-REPLAY] [HTTP-REPLAY]
Thomson, M., Nottingham, M., and W. Tarreau, "Using Early Thomson, M., Nottingham, M., and W. Tarreau, "Using Early
Data in HTTP", RFC 8470, DOI 10.17487/RFC8470, September Data in HTTP", RFC 8470, DOI 10.17487/RFC8470, September
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8470>. 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8470>.
[HTTP2-TLS13] [HTTP2-TLS13]
Benjamin, D., "Using TLS 1.3 with HTTP/2", RFC 8740, Benjamin, D., "Using TLS 1.3 with HTTP/2", RFC 8740,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8740, February 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8740, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8740>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8740>.
[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", DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-26948-7_9,
235-265, DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-26948-7_9, 2019. Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2019, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol 11692, pp. 235-265, 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-33 (work in progress), (HTTP/3)", draft-ietf-quic-http-latest (work in progress).
January 2021.
[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>.
[ROBUST] Fischlin, M., Guenther, F., and C. Janson, "Robust [ROBUST] Fischlin, M., Guenther, F., and C. Janson, "Robust
Channels: Handling Unreliable Networks in the Record Channels: Handling Unreliable Networks in the Record
Layers of QUIC and DTLS 1.3", May 2020, Layers of QUIC and DTLS 1.3", May 2020,
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/718>. <https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/718>.
Appendix A. Sample Packet Protection Appendix A. Sample Packet Protection
This section shows examples of packet protection so that This section shows examples of packet protection so that
implementations can be verified incrementally. Samples of Initial implementations can be verified incrementally. Samples of Initial
packets from both client and server, plus a Retry packet are defined. packets from both client and server plus a Retry packet are defined.
These packets use an 8-byte client-chosen Destination Connection ID These packets use an 8-byte client-chosen Destination Connection ID
of 0x8394c8f03e515708. Some intermediate values are included. All of 0x8394c8f03e515708. Some intermediate values are included. All
values are shown in hexadecimal. values are shown in hexadecimal.
A.1. Keys A.1. Keys
The labels generated during the execution of the HKDF-Expand-Label The labels generated during the execution of the HKDF-Expand-Label
function (that is, HkdfLabel.label) and part of the value given to function (that is, HkdfLabel.label) and part of the value given to
the HKDF-Expand function in order to produce its output are: the HKDF-Expand function in order to produce its output are:
skipping to change at page 53, line 28 skipping to change at page 53, line 9
75300901100f088394c8f03e51570806 048000ffff 75300901100f088394c8f03e51570806 048000ffff
The unprotected header indicates a length of 1182 bytes: the 4-byte The unprotected header indicates a length of 1182 bytes: the 4-byte
packet number, 1162 bytes of frames, and the 16-byte authentication packet number, 1162 bytes of frames, and the 16-byte authentication
tag. The header includes the connection ID and a packet number of 2: tag. The header includes the connection ID and a packet number of 2:
c300000001088394c8f03e5157080000449e00000002 c300000001088394c8f03e5157080000449e00000002
Protecting the payload produces output that is sampled for header Protecting the payload produces output that is sampled for header
protection. Because the header uses a 4-byte packet number encoding, protection. Because the header uses a 4-byte packet number encoding,
the first 16 bytes of the protected payload is sampled, then applied the first 16 bytes of the protected payload is sampled and then
to the header: applied to the header as follows:
sample = d1b1c98dd7689fb8ec11d242b123dc9b sample = d1b1c98dd7689fb8ec11d242b123dc9b
mask = AES-ECB(hp, sample)[0..4] mask = AES-ECB(hp, sample)[0..4]
= 437b9aec36 = 437b9aec36
header[0] ^= mask[0] & 0x0f header[0] ^= mask[0] & 0x0f
= c0 = c0
header[18..21] ^= mask[1..4] header[18..21] ^= mask[1..4]
= 7b9aec34 = 7b9aec34
skipping to change at page 57, line 48 skipping to change at page 57, line 48
deployment patterns, whereas the 2^16 is the maximum possible size of deployment patterns, whereas the 2^16 is the maximum possible size of
a QUIC packet. Only endpoints that strictly limit packet size can a QUIC packet. Only endpoints that strictly limit packet size can
use the larger confidentiality and integrity limits that are derived use the larger confidentiality and integrity limits that are derived
using the smaller packet size. using the smaller packet size.
For AEAD_AES_128_GCM and AEAD_AES_256_GCM, the message length (l) is For AEAD_AES_128_GCM and AEAD_AES_256_GCM, the message length (l) is
the length of the associated data in blocks plus the length of the the length of the associated data in blocks plus the length of the
plaintext in blocks. plaintext in blocks.
For AEAD_AES_128_CCM, the total number of block cipher operations is For AEAD_AES_128_CCM, the total number of block cipher operations is
the sum of: the length of the associated data in blocks, the length the sum of the following: the length of the associated data in
of the ciphertext in blocks, the length of the plaintext in blocks, blocks, the length of the ciphertext in blocks, the length of the
plus 1. In this analysis, this is simplified to a value of twice the plaintext in blocks, plus 1. In this analysis, this is simplified to
length of the packet in blocks (that is, "2l = 2^8" for packets that a value of twice the length of the packet in blocks (that is, 2l =
are limited to 2^11 bytes, or "2l = 2^13" otherwise). This 2^8 for packets that are limited to 2^11 bytes, or 2l = 2^13
simplification is based on the packet containing all of the otherwise). This simplification is based on the packet containing
associated data and ciphertext. This results in a 1 to 3 block all of the associated data and ciphertext. This results in a one to
overestimation of the number of operations per packet. three block overestimation of the number of operations per packet.
B.1. Analysis of AEAD_AES_128_GCM and AEAD_AES_256_GCM Usage Limits B.1. Analysis of AEAD_AES_128_GCM and AEAD_AES_256_GCM Usage Limits
[GCM-MU] specify concrete bounds for AEAD_AES_128_GCM and [GCM-MU] specifies concrete bounds for AEAD_AES_128_GCM and
AEAD_AES_256_GCM as used in TLS 1.3 and QUIC. This section documents AEAD_AES_256_GCM as used in TLS 1.3 and QUIC. This section documents
this analysis using several simplifying assumptions: this analysis using several simplifying assumptions:
o The number of ciphertext blocks an attacker uses in forgery o The number of ciphertext blocks an attacker uses in forgery
attempts is bounded by v * l, the number of forgery attempts and attempts is bounded by v * l, which is the number of forgery
the size of each packet (in blocks). attempts multiplied by the size of each packet (in blocks).
o The amount of offline work done by an attacker does not dominate o The amount of offline work done by an attacker does not dominate
other factors in the analysis. other factors in the analysis.
The bounds in [GCM-MU] are tighter and more complete than those used The bounds in [GCM-MU] are tighter and more complete than those used
in [AEBounds], which allows for larger limits than those described in in [AEBounds], which allows for larger limits than those described in
[TLS13]. [TLS13].
B.1.1. Confidentiality Limit B.1.1. Confidentiality Limit
For confidentiality, Theorum (4.3) in [GCM-MU] establishes that - for For confidentiality, Theorem (4.3) in [GCM-MU] establishes that, for
a single user that does not repeat nonces - the dominant term in a single user that does not repeat nonces, the dominant term in
determining the distinguishing advantage between a real and random determining the distinguishing advantage between a real and random
AEAD algorithm gained by an attacker is: AEAD algorithm gained by an attacker is:
2 * (q * l)^2 / 2^n 2 * (q * l)^2 / 2^n
For a target advantage of 2^-57, this results in the relation: For a target advantage of 2^-57, this results in the relation:
q <= 2^35 / l q <= 2^35 / l
Thus, endpoints that do not send packets larger than 2^11 bytes Thus, endpoints that do not send packets larger than 2^11 bytes
cannot protect more than 2^28 packets in a single connection without cannot protect more than 2^28 packets in a single connection without
causing an attacker to gain an larger advantage than the target of causing an attacker to gain a more significant advantage than the
2^-57. The limit for endpoints that allow for the packet size to be target of 2^-57. The limit for endpoints that allow for the packet
as large as 2^16 is instead 2^23. size to be as large as 2^16 is instead 2^23.
B.1.2. Integrity Limit B.1.2. Integrity Limit
For integrity, Theorem (4.3) in [GCM-MU] establishes that an attacker For integrity, Theorem (4.3) in [GCM-MU] establishes that an attacker
gains an advantage in successfully forging a packet of no more than: gains an advantage in successfully forging a packet of no more than
the following:
(1 / 2^(8 * n)) + ((2 * v) / 2^(2 * n)) (1 / 2^(8 * n)) + ((2 * v) / 2^(2 * n))
+ ((2 * o * v) / 2^(k + n)) + (n * (v + (v * l)) / 2^k) + ((2 * o * v) / 2^(k + n)) + (n * (v + (v * l)) / 2^k)
The goal is to limit this advantage to 2^-57. For AEAD_AES_128_GCM, The goal is to limit this advantage to 2^-57. For AEAD_AES_128_GCM,
the fourth term in this inequality dominates the rest, so the others the fourth term in this inequality dominates the rest, so the others
can be removed without significant effect on the result. This can be removed without significant effect on the result. This
produces the following approximation: produces the following approximation:
v <= 2^64 / l v <= 2^64 / l
skipping to change at page 59, line 39 skipping to change at page 59, line 39
AEAD_AES_128_CCM. However, any AEAD that is used with QUIC requires AEAD_AES_128_CCM. However, any AEAD that is used with QUIC requires
limits on use that ensure that both confidentiality and integrity are limits on use that ensure that both confidentiality and integrity are
preserved. This section documents that analysis. preserved. This section documents that analysis.
[CCM-ANALYSIS] is used as the basis of this analysis. The results of [CCM-ANALYSIS] is used as the basis of this analysis. The results of
that analysis are used to derive usage limits that are based on those that analysis are used to derive usage limits that are based on those
chosen in [TLS13]. chosen in [TLS13].
For confidentiality, Theorem 2 in [CCM-ANALYSIS] establishes that an For confidentiality, Theorem 2 in [CCM-ANALYSIS] establishes that an
attacker gains a distinguishing advantage over an ideal pseudorandom attacker gains a distinguishing advantage over an ideal pseudorandom
permutation (PRP) of no more than: permutation (PRP) of no more than the following:
(2l * q)^2 / 2^n (2l * q)^2 / 2^n
The integrity limit in Theorem 1 in [CCM-ANALYSIS] provides an The integrity limit in Theorem 1 in [CCM-ANALYSIS] provides an
attacker a strictly higher advantage for the same number of messages. attacker a strictly higher advantage for the same number of messages.
As the targets for the confidentiality advantage and the integrity As the targets for the confidentiality advantage and the integrity
advantage are the same, only Theorem 1 needs to be considered. advantage are the same, only Theorem 1 needs to be considered.
Theorem 1 establishes that an attacker gains an advantage over an Theorem 1 establishes that an attacker gains an advantage over an
ideal PRP of no more than: ideal PRP of no more than the following:
v / 2^t + (2l * (v + q))^2 / 2^n v / 2^t + (2l * (v + q))^2 / 2^n
As "t" and "n" are both 128, the first term is negligible relative to As "t" and "n" are both 128, the first term is negligible relative to
the second, so that term can be removed without a significant effect the second, so that term can be removed without a significant effect
on the result. on the result.
This produces a relation that combines both encryption and decryption This produces a relation that combines both encryption and decryption
attempts with the same limit as that produced by the theorem for attempts with the same limit as that produced by the theorem for
confidentiality alone. For a target advantage of 2^-57, this results confidentiality alone. For a target advantage of 2^-57, this results
in: in the following:
v + q <= 2^34.5 / l v + q <= 2^34.5 / l
By setting "q = v", values for both confidentiality and integrity By setting "q = v", values for both confidentiality and integrity
limits can be produced. Endpoints that limit packets to 2^11 bytes limits can be produced. Endpoints that limit packets to 2^11 bytes
therefore have both confidentiality and integrity limits of 2^26.5 therefore have both confidentiality and integrity limits of 2^26.5
packets. Endpoints that do not restrict packet size have a limit of packets. Endpoints that do not restrict packet size have a limit of
2^21.5. 2^21.5.
Appendix C. Change Log
*RFC Editor's Note:* Please remove this section prior to
publication of a final version of this document.
Issue and pull request numbers are listed with a leading octothorp.
C.1. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-32
o Added final values for Initial key derivation, Retry
authentication, and TLS extension type for the QUIC Transport
Parameters extension (#4431) (#4431)
o Corrected rules for handling of 0-RTT (#4393, #4394)
C.2. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-31
o Packet protection limits are based on maximum-sized packets;
improved analysis (#3701, #4175)
C.3. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-30
o Add a new error code for AEAD_LIMIT_REACHED code to avoid conflict
(#4087, #4088)
C.4. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-29
o Updated limits on packet protection (#3788, #3789)
o Allow for packet processing to continue while waiting for TLS to
provide keys (#3821, #3874)
C.5. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-28
o Defined limits on the number of packets that can be protected with
a single key and limits on the number of packets that can fail
authentication (#3619, #3620)
o Update Initial salt, Retry keys, and samples (#3711)
C.6. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-27
o Allowed CONNECTION_CLOSE in any packet number space, with
restrictions on use of the application-specific variant (#3430,
#3435, #3440)
o Prohibit the use of the compatibility mode from TLS 1.3 (#3594,
#3595)
C.7. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-26
o No changes
C.8. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-25
o No changes
C.9. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-24
o Rewrite key updates (#3050)
* Allow but don't recommend deferring key updates (#2792, #3263)
* More completely define received behavior (#2791)
* Define the label used with HKDF-Expand-Label (#3054)
C.10. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-23
o Key update text update (#3050):
* Recommend constant-time key replacement (#2792)
* Provide explicit labels for key update key derivation (#3054)
o Allow first Initial from a client to span multiple packets (#2928,
#3045)
o PING can be sent at any encryption level (#3034, #3035)
C.11. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-22
o Update the salt used for Initial secrets (#2887, #2980)
C.12. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-21
o No changes
C.13. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-20
o Mandate the use of the QUIC transport parameters extension (#2528,
#2560)
o Define handshake completion and confirmation; define clearer rules
when it encryption keys should be discarded (#2214, #2267, #2673)
C.14. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-18
o Increased the set of permissible frames in 0-RTT (#2344, #2355)
o Transport parameter extension is mandatory (#2528, #2560)
C.15. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-17
o Endpoints discard initial keys as soon as handshake keys are
available (#1951, #2045)
o Use of ALPN or equivalent is mandatory (#2263, #2284)
C.16. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-14
o Update the salt used for Initial secrets (#1970)
o Clarify that TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256 isn't supported (#2019)
o Change header protection
* Sample from a fixed offset (#1575, #2030)
* Cover part of the first byte, including the key phase (#1322,
#2006)
o TLS provides an AEAD and KDF function (#2046)
* Clarify that the TLS KDF is used with TLS (#1997)
* Change the labels for calculation of QUIC keys (#1845, #1971,
#1991)
o Initial keys are discarded once Handshake keys are available
(#1951, #2045)
C.17. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-13
o Updated to TLS 1.3 final (#1660)
C.18. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-12
o Changes to integration of the TLS handshake (#829, #1018, #1094,
#1165, #1190, #1233, #1242, #1252, #1450)
* The cryptographic handshake uses CRYPTO frames, not stream 0
* QUIC packet protection is used in place of TLS record
protection
* Separate QUIC packet number spaces are used for the handshake
* Changed Retry to be independent of the cryptographic handshake
* Limit the use of HelloRetryRequest to address TLS needs (like
key shares)
o Changed codepoint of TLS extension (#1395, #1402)
C.19. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-11
o Encrypted packet numbers.
C.20. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-10
o No significant changes.
C.21. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-09
o Cleaned up key schedule and updated the salt used for handshake
packet protection (#1077)
C.22. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-08
o Specify value for max_early_data_size to enable 0-RTT (#942)
o Update key derivation function (#1003, #1004)
C.23. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-07
o Handshake errors can be reported with CONNECTION_CLOSE (#608,
#891)
C.24. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-05
No significant changes.
C.25. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-04
o Update labels used in HKDF-Expand-Label to match TLS 1.3 (#642)
C.26. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-03
No significant changes.
C.27. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-02
o Updates to match changes in transport draft
C.28. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-01
o Use TLS alerts to signal TLS errors (#272, #374)
o Require ClientHello to fit in a single packet (#338)
o The second client handshake flight is now sent in the clear (#262,
#337)
o The QUIC header is included as AEAD Associated Data (#226, #243,
#302)
o Add interface necessary for client address validation (#275)
o Define peer authentication (#140)
o Require at least TLS 1.3 (#138)
o Define transport parameters as a TLS extension (#122)
o Define handling for protected packets before the handshake
completes (#39)
o Decouple QUIC version and ALPN (#12)
C.29. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-00
o Changed bit used to signal key phase
o Updated key phase markings during the handshake
o Added TLS interface requirements section
o Moved to use of TLS exporters for key derivation
o Moved TLS error code definitions into this document
C.30. Since draft-thomson-quic-tls-01
o Adopted as base for draft-ietf-quic-tls
o Updated authors/editors list
o Added status note
Contributors Contributors
The IETF QUIC Working Group received an enormous amount of support The IETF QUIC Working Group received an enormous amount of support
from many people. The following people provided substantive from many people. The following people provided substantive
contributions to this document: contributions to this document:
o Adam Langley o Adam Langley
o Alessandro Ghedini o Alessandro Ghedini
 End of changes. 138 change blocks. 
596 lines changed or deleted 330 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/