No problem, see in-line for links to the GitHub issues: On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 5:49 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Lucas, Martin, > > Due to a screw-up on my end with the datatracker "send mail" interstitial, > my reballot to add a couple more comments didn't get sent out as planned > (before you made your pass through them and sent this note). > > They are still available in the datatracker, but for simplicity I'll just > paste them here. Hopefully my error did not cause too much disruption in > your workflow, and thank you again for doing the translation into github > issues. > > -Ben > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > I think we would benefit from some clarity about the client's response > to a Retry. Specifically, is the client expected to use the same > ClientHello from the first Initial, in the Initial generated in response > to the Retry? I did not see any notes about, e.g., transport parameter > values sent by the client changing in response to Retry, and since the > Connection IDs change it seems that we might fall under the Random (and > key share) reuse considerations for TLS. > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4593 > Abstract > > I think this document also specifies some generic bits about how QUIC > uses cryptography, that are not directly related to TLS integration. > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4594 Cheers Lucas
