Regarding RFC language, I think we could be more specific:
1. A TLS implementation SHOULD/MUST only send 0-RTT application data if the application has explicitly opted in; 2. A TLS implementation SHOULD/MUST only accept 0-RTT application data if the application has explicitly opted in; 3. When delivering 0-RTT application data to the application, a TLS implementation SHOULD/MUST provide a way for the application to distinguish it from the rest of the application data. Or some better phrasing that our capable editor can craft😊. Cheers, Andrei From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 11:48 AM To: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com>; Colm MacCárthaigh <c...@allcosts.net> Cc: tls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [TLS] Separate APIs for 0-RTT On 06/13/2017 01:35 PM, Ilari Liusvaara wrote: On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:07:35AM -0700, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote: On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Benjamin Kaduk <bka...@akamai.com><mailto:bka...@akamai.com> wrote: I have been operating under the impression that at least some application profiles for early data will require that certain application protocol requests (e.g., something like HTTP POST) must be rejected at the application layer as "not appropriate for 0-RTT data", which requires the application to know if the request was received over 0-RTT data. That's a really good point; you've changed my mind. It's obviously a good idea to return a 5XX to a POST over 0-RTT and that would need this. I think the proper code to send is 400. The request is client error, nor server error, so it is 4XX. And there does not seem to be suitable 4XX code, so it goes to catch-all client error code 400. For HTTP/2, refusing the stream (sending stream error 7 without sending server headers) is also a good choice, as this should trigger a retransmission of the offending request (POST requests failed by refusing the stream are retryable). At least the http 0-RTT profile that I started writing was going to allocate a new 4XX error code for this purpose. I am under no pretense that my version of such a document will resemble anything that finally gets published, though. -Ben
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
