<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
  <!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 version 1.0.30 -->

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
]>

<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc docmapping="yes"?>

<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-quic-tls-00" category="std">

  <feedback xmlns='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext' template="mailto:quic@ietf.org?subject={docname},%20%22{section}%22&amp;body=%3c{ref}%3e:"/><front>
    <title abbrev="QUIC over TLS">Using Transport Layer Security (TLS) to Secure QUIC</title>

    <author initials="M." surname="Thomson" fullname="Martin Thomson" role="editor">
      <organization>Mozilla</organization>
      <address>
        <email>martin.thomson@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="S." surname="Turner, Ed" fullname="Sean Turner" role="editor">
      <organization>sn3rd</organization>
      <address>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2016" month="11" day="28"/>

    <area>Transport</area>
    <workgroup>QUIC</workgroup>
    

    <abstract>


<t>This document describes how Transport Layer Security (TLS) can be used to secure
QUIC.</t>



    </abstract>


  </front>

  <middle>


<section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">

<t>QUIC <xref target="QUIC-TRANSPORT"/> provides a multiplexed transport.  When used for HTTP
<xref target="RFC7230"/> semantics <xref target="QUIC-HTTP"/> it provides several key advantages over
HTTP/1.1 <xref target="RFC7230"/> or HTTP/2 <xref target="RFC7540"/> over TCP <xref target="RFC0793"/>.</t>

<t>This document describes how QUIC can be secured using Transport Layer Security
(TLS) version 1.3 <xref target="I-D.ietf-tls-tls13"/>.  TLS 1.3 provides critical latency
improvements for connection establishment over previous versions.  Absent packet
loss, most new connections can be established and secured within a single round
trip; on subsequent connections between the same client and server, the client
can often send application data immediately, that is, zero round trip setup.</t>

<t>This document describes how the standardized TLS 1.3 can act a security
component of QUIC.  The same design could work for TLS 1.2, though few of the
benefits QUIC provides would be realized due to the handshake latency in
versions of TLS prior to 1.3.</t>

<section anchor="notational-conventions" title="Notational Conventions">

<t>The words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “SHOULD”, and “MAY” are used in this document.
It’s not shouting; when they are capitalized, they have the special meaning
defined in <xref target="RFC2119"/>.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="protocol-overview" title="Protocol Overview">

<t>QUIC <xref target="QUIC-TRANSPORT"/> can be separated into several modules:</t>

<t><list style="numbers">
  <t>The basic frame envelope describes the common packet layout.  This layer
includes connection identification, version negotiation, and includes markers
that allow the framing and public reset to be identified.</t>
  <t>The public reset is an unprotected packet that allows an intermediary (an
entity that is not part of the security context) to request the termination
of a QUIC connection.</t>
  <t>Version negotiation frames are used to agree on a common version of QUIC to
use.</t>
  <t>Framing comprises most of the QUIC protocol.  Framing provides a number of
different types of frame, each with a specific purpose.  Framing supports
frames for both congestion management and stream multiplexing.  Framing
additionally provides a liveness testing capability (the PING frame).</t>
  <t>Encryption provides confidentiality and integrity protection for frames.  All
frames are protected based on keying material derived from the TLS connection
running on stream 1.  Prior to this, data is protected with the 0-RTT keys.</t>
  <t>Multiplexed streams are the primary payload of QUIC.  These provide reliable,
in-order delivery of data and are used to carry the encryption handshake and
transport parameters (stream 1), HTTP header fields (stream 3), and HTTP
requests and responses.  Frames for managing multiplexing include those for
creating and destroying streams as well as flow control and priority frames.</t>
  <t>Congestion management includes packet acknowledgment and other signal
required to ensure effective use of available link capacity.</t>
  <t>A complete TLS connection is run on stream 1.  This includes the entire TLS
record layer.  As the TLS connection reaches certain states, keying material
is provided to the QUIC encryption layer for protecting the remainder of the
QUIC traffic.</t>
  <t>The HTTP mapping <xref target="QUIC-HTTP"/> provides an adaptation to
HTTP semantics that is based on HTTP/2.</t>
</list></t>

<t>The relative relationship of these components are pictorally represented in
<xref target="quic-structure"/>.</t>

<figure title="QUIC Structure" anchor="quic-structure"><artwork><![CDATA[
   +-----+------+
   | TLS | HTTP |
   +-----+------+------------+
   |  Streams   | Congestion |
   +------------+------------+
   |         Frames          +--------+---------+
   +   +---------------------+ Public | Version |
   |   |     Encryption      | Reset  |  Nego.  |
   +---+---------------------+--------+---------+
   |                   Envelope                 |
   +--------------------------------------------+
   |                     UDP                    |
   +--------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>This document defines the cryptographic parts of QUIC.  This includes the
handshake messages that are exchanged on stream 1, plus the record protection
that is used to encrypt and authenticate all other frames.</t>

<section anchor="handshake-overview" title="Handshake Overview">

<t>TLS 1.3 provides two basic handshake modes of interest to QUIC:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>A full handshake in which the client is able to send application data after
one round trip and the server immediately after receiving the first message
from the client.</t>
  <t>A 0-RTT handshake in which the client uses information about the server to
send immediately.  This data can be replayed by an attacker so it MUST NOT
carry a self-contained trigger for any non-idempotent action.</t>
</list></t>

<t>A simplified TLS 1.3 handshake with 0-RTT application data is shown in
<xref target="tls-full"/>, see <xref target="I-D.ietf-tls-tls13"/> for more options and details.</t>

<figure title="TLS Handshake with 0-RTT" anchor="tls-full"><artwork><![CDATA[
    Client                                             Server

    ClientHello
   (0-RTT Application Data)
   (end_of_early_data)        -------->
                                                  ServerHello
                                         {EncryptedExtensions}
                                         {ServerConfiguration}
                                                 {Certificate}
                                           {CertificateVerify}
                                                    {Finished}
                             <--------      [Application Data]
   {Finished}                -------->

   [Application Data]        <------->      [Application Data]
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>Two additional variations on this basic handshake exchange are relevant to this
document:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>The server can respond to a ClientHello with a HelloRetryRequest, which adds
an additional round trip prior to the basic exchange.  This is needed if the
server wishes to request a different key exchange key from the client.
HelloRetryRequest is also used to verify that the client is correctly able to
receive packets on the address it claims to have (see <xref target="source-address"/>).</t>
  <t>A pre-shared key mode can be used for subsequent handshakes to avoid public
key operations.  This is the basis for 0-RTT data, even if the remainder of
the connection is protected by a new Diffie-Hellman exchange.</t>
</list></t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="tls-in-stream-1" title="TLS in Stream 1">

<t>QUIC completes its cryptographic handshake on stream 1, which means that the
negotiation of keying material happens after the QUIC protocol has started.
This simplifies the use of TLS since QUIC is able to ensure that the TLS
handshake packets are delivered reliably and in order.</t>

<t>QUIC Stream 1 carries a complete TLS connection.  This includes the TLS record
layer in its entirety.  QUIC provides for reliable and in-order delivery of the
TLS handshake messages on this stream.</t>

<t>Prior to the completion of the TLS handshake, QUIC frames can be exchanged.
However, these frames are not authenticated or confidentiality protected.
<xref target="pre-handshake"/> covers some of the implications of this design and limitations
on QUIC operation during this phase.</t>

<t>Once the TLS handshake completes, QUIC frames are protected using QUIC record
protection, see <xref target="packet-protection"/>.  If 0-RTT is possible, QUIC frames sent
by the client can be protected with 0-RTT keys; these packets are subject to
replay.</t>

<section anchor="handshake-and-setup-sequence" title="Handshake and Setup Sequence">

<t>The integration of QUIC with a TLS handshake is shown in more detail in
<xref target="quic-tls-handshake"/>.  QUIC <spanx style="verb">STREAM</spanx> frames on stream 1 carry the TLS
handshake.  QUIC performs loss recovery <xref target="QUIC-RECOVERY"/> for this stream and
ensures that TLS handshake messages are delivered in the correct order.</t>

<figure title="QUIC over TLS Handshake" anchor="quic-tls-handshake"><artwork><![CDATA[
    Client                                             Server

@A QUIC STREAM Frame(s) <1>:
     ClientHello
       + QUIC Setup Parameters
                            -------->
                        0-RTT Key => @B

@B QUIC STREAM Frame(s) <any stream>:
   Replayable QUIC Frames
                            -------->

                                      QUIC STREAM Frame <1>: @A
                                               ServerHello
                                      {Handshake Messages}
                            <--------
                        1-RTT Key => @C

                                           QUIC Frames <any> @C
                            <--------
@A QUIC STREAM Frame(s) <1>:
     (end_of_early_data)
     {Finished}
                            -------->

@C QUIC Frames <any>        <------->      QUIC Frames <any> @C
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>In <xref target="quic-tls-handshake"/>, symbols mean:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>”&lt;” and “&gt;” enclose stream numbers.</t>
  <t>”@” indicates the key phase that is currently used for protecting QUIC
packets.</t>
  <t>”(“ and “)” enclose messages that are protected with TLS 0-RTT handshake or
application keys.</t>
  <t>”{“ and “}” enclose messages that are protected by the TLS Handshake keys.</t>
</list></t>

<t>If 0-RTT is not possible, then the client does not send frames protected by the
0-RTT key (@B).  In that case, the only key transition on the client is from
cleartext (@A) to 1-RTT protection (@C).</t>

<t>The server sends TLS handshake messages without protection (@A).  The server
transitions from no protection (@A) to full 1-RTT protection (@C) after it sends
the last of its handshake messages.</t>

<t>Some TLS handshake messages are protected by the TLS handshake record
protection.  However, keys derived at this stage are not exported for use in
QUIC.  QUIC frames from the server are sent in the clear until the final
transition to 1-RTT keys.</t>

<t>The client transitions from @A to @B when sending 0-RTT data, but it transitions
back to @A when sending its second flight of TLS handshake messages.  This
introduces a potential for confusion between packets with 0-RTT protection (@B)
and those with 1-RTT protection (@C) at the server if there is loss or
reordering of the handshake packets.  See <xref target="zero-transition"/> for details on how
this is addressed.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="packet-protection" title="QUIC Packet Protection">

<t>QUIC provides a packet protection layer that is responsible for authenticated
encryption of packets.  The packet protection layer uses keys provided by the
TLS connection and authenticated encryption to provide confidentiality and
integrity protection for the content of packets (see <xref target="aead"/>).</t>

<t>Different keys are used for QUIC packet protection and TLS record protection.
Having separate QUIC and TLS record protection means that TLS records can be
protected by two different keys.  This redundancy is limited to a only a few TLS
records, and is maintained for the sake of simplicity.</t>

<t>Keying material for new keys is exported from TLS using TLS exporters.  These
exported values are used to produce the keying material used to protect packets
(see <xref target="key-expansion"/>).</t>

<section anchor="key-phases" title="Key Phases">

<t>At several stages during the handshake, new keying material can be exported from
TLS and used for QUIC packet protection.  At each transition during the
handshake a new secret is exported from TLS and keying material is derived from
that secret.</t>

<t>Every time that a new set of keys is used for protecting outbound packets, the
KEY_PHASE bit in the public flags is toggled.  The KEY_PHASE bit starts out with
a value of 0 and is set to 1 when the first encrypted packets are sent.  Once
the connection is fully enabled, the KEY_PHASE bit can toggle between 0 and 1 as
keys are updated (see <xref target="key-update"/>).</t>

<t>The KEY_PHASE bit on the public flags is the most significant bit (0x80).</t>

<t>The KEY_PHASE bit allows a recipient to detect a change in keying material
without necessarily needing to receive the first packet that triggered the
change.  An endpoint that notices a changed KEY_PHASE bit can update keys and
decrypt the packet that contains the changed bit.  This isn’t possible during
the handshake, because the entire first flight of TLS handshake messages is used
as input to key derivation.</t>

<t>The following transitions are possible:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>When using 0-RTT, the client transitions to using 0-RTT keys after sending the
ClientHello.  The KEY_PHASE bit on 0-RTT packets sent by the client is set to
1.</t>
  <t>The server sends messages in the clear until the TLS handshake completes.  The
KEY_PHASE bit on packets sent by the server is set to 0 when the handshake is
in progress.  Note that TLS handshake messages will still be protected by TLS
record protection based on the TLS handshake traffic keys.</t>
  <t>The server transitions to using 1-RTT keys after sending its Finished message.
This causes the KEY_PHASE bit on packets sent by the server to be set to 1.</t>
  <t>The client transitions back to cleartext when sending its second flight of TLS
handshake messages.  KEY_PHASE on the client’s second flight of handshake
messages is set back to 0.  This includes a TLS end_of_early_data alert, which
is protected with TLS (not QUIC) 0-RTT keys.</t>
  <t>The client transitions to sending with 1-RTT keys and a KEY_PHASE of 1 after
sending its Finished message.</t>
  <t>Once the handshake is complete and all TLS handshake messages have been sent
and acknowledged, either endpoint can send packets with a new set of keys.
This is signaled by toggling the value of the KEY_PHASE bit, see
<xref target="key-update"/>.</t>
</list></t>

<t>At each transition point, both keying material (see <xref target="key-expansion"/>) and the
AEAD function used by TLS is interchanged with the values that are currently in
use for protecting outbound packets.  Once a change of keys has been made,
packets with higher sequence numbers MUST use the new keying material until a
newer set of keys (and AEAD) are used.  The exception to this is that
retransmissions of TLS handshake packets MUST use the keys that they were
originally protected with (see <xref target="hs-retransmit"/>).</t>

<section anchor="hs-retransmit" title="Retransmission of TLS Handshake Messages">

<t>TLS handshake messages need to be retransmitted with the same level of
cryptographic protection that was originally used to protect them.  Newer keys
cannot be used to protect QUIC packets that carry TLS messages.</t>

<t>A client would be unable to decrypt retransmissions of a server’s handshake
messages that are protected using the 1-RTT keys, since the calculation of the
1-RTT keys depends on the contents of the handshake messages.</t>

<t>This restriction means the creation of an exception to the requirement to always
use new keys for sending once they are available.  A server MUST mark the
retransmitted handshake messages with the same KEY_PHASE as the original
messages to allow a recipient to distinguish retransmitted messages.</t>

<t>This rule also prevents a key update from being initiated while there are any
outstanding handshake messages, see <xref target="key-update"/>.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="zero-transition" title="Distinguishing 0-RTT and 1-RTT Packets">

<t>Loss or reordering of the client’s second flight of TLS handshake messages can
cause 0-RTT packet and 1-RTT packets to become indistinguishable from each other
when they arrive at the server.  Both 0-RTT packets use a KEY_PHASE of 1.</t>

<t>A server does not need to receive the client’s second flight of TLS handshake
messages in order to derive the secrets needed to decrypt 1-RTT messages.  Thus,
a server is able to decrypt 1-RTT messages that arrive prior to receiving the
client’s Finished message.  Of course, any decision that might be made based on
client authentication needs to be delayed until the client’s authentication
messages have been received and validated.</t>

<t>A server can distinguish between 0-RTT and 1-RTT packets by TBDTBDTBD.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="key-expansion" title="QUIC Key Expansion">

<t>QUIC uses a system of packet protection secrets, keys and IVs that are modelled
on the system used in TLS <xref target="I-D.ietf-tls-tls13"/>.  The secrets that QUIC uses
as the basis of its key schedule are obtained using TLS exporters (see Section
7.3.3 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-tls-tls13"/>).</t>

<t>QUIC uses the Pseudo-Random Function (PRF) hash function negotiated by TLS for
key derivation.  For example, if TLS is using the TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256, the
SHA-256 hash function is used.</t>

<section anchor="rtt-secret" title="0-RTT Secret">

<t>0-RTT keys are those keys that are used in resumed connections prior to the
completion of the TLS handshake.  Data sent using 0-RTT keys might be replayed
and so has some restrictions on its use, see <xref target="using-early-data"/>.  0-RTT keys
are used after sending or receiving a ClientHello.</t>

<t>The secret is exported from TLS using the exporter label “EXPORTER-QUIC 0-RTT
Secret” and an empty context.  The size of the secret MUST be the size of the
hash output for the PRF hash function negotiated by TLS.  This uses the TLS
early_exporter_secret.  The QUIC 0-RTT secret is only used for protection of
packets sent by the client.</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
   client_0rtt_secret
       = TLS-Exporter("EXPORTER-QUIC 0-RTT Secret"
                      "", Hash.length)
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="rtt-secrets" title="1-RTT Secrets">

<t>1-RTT keys are used by both client and server after the TLS handshake completes.
There are two secrets used at any time: one is used to derive packet protection
keys for packets sent by the client, the other for protecting packets sent by
the server.</t>

<t>The initial client packet protection secret is exported from TLS using the
exporter label “EXPORTER-QUIC client 1-RTT Secret”; the initial server packet
protection secret uses the exporter label “EXPORTER-QUIC server 1-RTT Secret”.
Both exporters use an empty context.  The size of the secret MUST be the size of
the hash output for the PRF hash function negotiated by TLS.</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
   client_pp_secret_0
       = TLS-Exporter("EXPORTER-QUIC client 1-RTT Secret"
                      "", Hash.length)
   server_pp_secret_0
       = TLS-Exporter("EXPORTER-QUIC server 1-RTT Secret"
                      "", Hash.length)
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>After a key update (see <xref target="key-update"/>), these secrets are updated using the
HKDF-Expand-Label function defined in Section 7.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-tls-tls13"/>,
using the PRF hash function negotiated by TLS.  The replacement secret is
derived using the existing Secret, a Label of “QUIC client 1-RTT Secret” for the
client and “QUIC server 1-RTT Secret”, an empty HashValue, and the same output
Length as the hash function selected by TLS for its PRF.</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
   client_pp_secret_<N+1>
       = HKDF-Expand-Label(client_pp_secret_<N>,
                           "QUIC client 1-RTT Secret",
                           "", Hash.length)
   server_pp_secret_<N+1>
       = HKDF-Expand-Label(server_pp_secret_<N>,
                           "QUIC server 1-RTT Secret",
                           "", Hash.length)
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>For example, the client secret is updated using HKDF-Expand <xref target="RFC5869"/> with an
info parameter that includes the PRF hash length encoded on two octets, the
string “TLS 1.3, QUIC client 1-RTT secret” and a zero octet.  This equates to a
single use of HMAC <xref target="RFC2104"/> with the negotiated PRF hash function:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
   info = Hash.length / 256 || Hash.length % 256 ||
          "TLS 1.3, QUIC client 1-RTT secret" || 0x00
   client_pp_secret_<N+1>
       = HMAC-Hash(client_pp_secret_<N>, info || 0x01)
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="packet-protection-key-and-iv" title="Packet Protection Key and IV">

<t>The complete key expansion uses an identical process for key expansion as
defined in Section 7.3 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-tls-tls13"/>, using different values for
the input secret.  QUIC uses the AEAD function negotiated by TLS.</t>

<t>The key and IV used to protect the 0-RTT packets sent by a client use the QUIC
0-RTT secret.  This uses the HKDF-Expand-Label with the PRF hash function
negotiated by TLS.  The length of the output is determined by the requirements
of the AEAD function selected by TLS.</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
   client_0rtt_key = HKDF-Expand-Label(client_0rtt_secret,
                                       "key", "", key_length)
   client_0rtt_iv = HKDF-Expand-Label(client_0rtt_secret,
                                      "iv", "", iv_length)
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>Similarly, the key and IV used to protect 1-RTT packets sent by both client and
server use the current packet protection secret.</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
   client_pp_key_<N> = HKDF-Expand-Label(client_pp_secret_<N>,
                                         "key", "", key_length)
   client_pp_iv_<N> = HKDF-Expand-Label(client_pp_secret_<N>,
                                        "iv", "", iv_length)
   server_pp_key_<N> = HKDF-Expand-Label(server_pp_secret_<N>,
                                         "key", "", key_length)
   server_pp_iv_<N> = HKDF-Expand-Label(server_pp_secret_<N>,
                                        "iv", "", iv_length)
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>The QUIC record protection initially starts without keying material.  When the
TLS state machine reports that the ClientHello has been sent, the 0-RTT keys can
be generated and installed for writing.  When the TLS state machine reports
completion of the handshake, the 1-RTT keys can be generated and installed for
writing.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="aead" title="QUIC AEAD Usage">

<t>The Authentication Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) <xref target="RFC5116"/> function
used for QUIC packet protection is AEAD that is negotiated for use with the TLS
connection.  For example, if TLS is using the TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256, the
AEAD_AES_128_GCM function is used.</t>

<t>Regular QUIC packets are protected by an AEAD <xref target="RFC5116"/>.  Version negotiation
and public reset packets are not protected.</t>

<t>Once TLS has provided a key, the contents of regular QUIC packets immediately
after any TLS messages have been sent are protected by the AEAD selected by TLS.</t>

<t>The key, K, for the AEAD is either the Client Write Key or the Server Write Key,
derived as defined in <xref target="key-expansion"/>.</t>

<t>The nonce, N, for the AEAD is formed by combining either the Client Write IV or
Server Write IV with packet numbers.  The 64 bits of the reconstructed QUIC
packet number in network byte order is left-padded with
zeros to the N_MAX parameter of the AEAD (see Section 4 of <xref target="RFC5116"/>).  The
exclusive OR of the padded packet number and the IV forms the AEAD nonce.</t>

<t>The associated data, A, for the AEAD is an empty sequence.</t>

<t>The input plaintext, P, for the AEAD is the contents of the QUIC frame following
the packet number, as described in <xref target="QUIC-TRANSPORT"/>.</t>

<t>The output ciphertext, C, of the AEAD is transmitted in place of P.</t>

<t>Prior to TLS providing keys, no record protection is performed and the
plaintext, P, is transmitted unmodified.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="key-update" title="Key Update">

<t>Once the TLS handshake is complete, the KEY_PHASE bit allows for refreshes of
keying material by either peer.  Endpoints start using updated keys immediately
without additional signaling; the change in the KEY_PHASE bit indicates that a
new key is in use.</t>

<t>An endpoint MUST NOT initiate more than one key update at a time.  A new key
cannot be used until the endpoint has received and successfully decrypted a
packet with a matching KEY_PHASE.</t>

<t>A receiving endpoint detects an update when the KEY_PHASE bit doesn’t match what
it is expecting.  It creates a new secret (see <xref target="key-expansion"/>) and the
corresponding read key and IV.  If the packet can be decrypted and authenticated
using these values, then a write keys and IV are generated and the active keys
are replaced.  The next packet sent by the endpoint will then use the new keys.</t>

<t>An endpoint doesn’t need to send packets immediately when it detects that its
peer has updated keys.  The next packets that it sends will simply use the new
keys.  If an endpoint detects a second update before it has sent any packets
with updated keys it indicates that its peer has updated keys twice without
awaiting a reciprocal update.  An endpoint MUST treat consecutive key updates as
a fatal error and abort the connection.</t>

<t>An endpoint SHOULD retain old keys for a short period to allow it to decrypt
packets with smaller packet numbers than the packet that triggered the key
update.  This allows an endpoint to consume packets that are reordered around
the transition between keys.  Packets with higher packet numbers always use the
updated keys and MUST NOT be decrypted with old keys.</t>

<t>Keys and their corresponding secrets SHOULD be discarded when an endpoints has
received all packets with sequence numbers lower than the lowest sequence number
used for the new key, or when it determines that the length of the delay to
affected packets is excessive.</t>

<t>This ensures that once the handshake is complete, there are at most two keys to
distinguish between at any one time, for which the KEY_PHASE bit is sufficient.</t>

<figure title="Key Update" anchor="ex-key-update"><artwork><![CDATA[
   Initiating Peer                    Responding Peer

@M QUIC Frames
                    New Keys -> @N
@N QUIC Frames
                      -------->
                                          QUIC Frames @M
                    New Keys -> @N
                                          QUIC Frames @N
                      <--------
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>As shown in <xref target="quic-tls-handshake"/> and <xref target="ex-key-update"/>, there is never a
situation where there are more than two different sets of keying material that
might be received by a peer.  Once both sending and receiving keys have been
updated,</t>

<t>A server cannot initiate a key update until it has received the client’s
Finished message.  Otherwise, packets protected by the updated keys could be
confused for retransmissions of handshake messages.  A client cannot initiate a
key update until all of its handshake messages have been acknowledged by the
server.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="packet-number" title="Packet Numbers">

<t>QUIC has a single, contiguous packet number space.  In comparison, TLS
restarts its sequence number each time that record protection keys are
changed.  The sequence number restart in TLS ensures that a compromise of the
current traffic keys does not allow an attacker to truncate the data that is
sent after a key update by sending additional packets under the old key
(causing new packets to be discarded).</t>

<t>QUIC does not assume a reliable transport and is therefore required to handle
attacks where packets are dropped in other ways.</t>

<t>The packet number is not reset and it is not permitted to go higher than its
maximum value of 2^64-1.  This establishes a hard limit on the number of packets
that can be sent.  Before this limit is reached, some AEAD functions have limits
for how many packets can be encrypted under the same key and IV (see for example
<xref target="AEBounds"/>).  An endpoint MUST initiate a key update (<xref target="key-update"/>) prior to
exceeding any limit set for the AEAD that is in use.</t>

<t>TLS maintains a separate sequence number that is used for record protection on
the connection that is hosted on stream 1.  This sequence number is reset
according to the rules in the TLS protocol.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="pre-handshake" title="Pre-handshake QUIC Messages">

<t>Implementations MUST NOT exchange data on any stream other than stream 1 prior
to the completion of the TLS handshake.  However, QUIC requires the use of
several types of frame for managing loss detection and recovery.  In addition,
it might be useful to use the data acquired during the exchange of
unauthenticated messages for congestion management.</t>

<t>This section generally only applies to TLS handshake messages from both peers
and acknowledgments of the packets carrying those messages.  In many cases, the
need for servers to provide acknowledgments is minimal, since the messages that
clients send are small and implicitly acknowledged by the server’s responses.</t>

<t>The actions that a peer takes as a result of receiving an unauthenticated packet
needs to be limited.  In particular, state established by these packets cannot
be retained once record protection commences.</t>

<t>There are several approaches possible for dealing with unauthenticated packets
prior to handshake completion:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>discard and ignore them</t>
  <t>use them, but reset any state that is established once the handshake completes</t>
  <t>use them and authenticate them afterwards; failing the handshake if they can’t
be authenticated</t>
  <t>save them and use them when they can be properly authenticated</t>
  <t>treat them as a fatal error</t>
</list></t>

<t>Different strategies are appropriate for different types of data.  This document
proposes that all strategies are possible depending on the type of message.</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>Transport parameters and options are made usable and authenticated as part of
the TLS handshake (see <xref target="quic_parameters"/>).</t>
  <t>Most unprotected messages are treated as fatal errors when received except for
the small number necessary to permit the handshake to complete (see
<xref target="pre-handshake-unprotected"/>).</t>
  <t>Protected packets can either be discarded or saved and later used (see
<xref target="pre-handshake-protected"/>).</t>
</list></t>

<section anchor="pre-handshake-unprotected" title="Unprotected Frames Prior to Handshake Completion">

<t>This section describes the handling of messages that are sent and received prior
to the completion of the TLS handshake.</t>

<t>Sending and receiving unprotected messages is hazardous.  Unless expressly
permitted, receipt of an unprotected message of any kind MUST be treated as a
fatal error.</t>

<section anchor="stream-frames" title="STREAM Frames">

<t><spanx style="verb">STREAM</spanx> frames for stream 1 are permitted.  These carry the TLS handshake
messages.</t>

<t>Receiving unprotected <spanx style="verb">STREAM</spanx> frames for other streams MUST be treated as a
fatal error.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="ack-frames" title="ACK Frames">

<t><spanx style="verb">ACK</spanx> frames are permitted prior to the handshake being complete.  Information
learned from <spanx style="verb">ACK</spanx> frames cannot be entirely relied upon, since an attacker is
able to inject these packets.  Timing and packet retransmission information from
<spanx style="verb">ACK</spanx> frames is critical to the functioning of the protocol, but these frames
might be spoofed or altered.</t>

<t>Endpoints MUST NOT use an unprotected <spanx style="verb">ACK</spanx> frame to acknowledge data that was
protected by 0-RTT or 1-RTT keys.  An endpoint MUST ignore an unprotected <spanx style="verb">ACK</spanx>
frame if it claims to acknowledge data that was protected data.  Such an
acknowledgement can only serve as a denial of service, since an endpoint that
can read protected data is always permitted to send protected data.</t>

<t>An endpoint SHOULD use data from unprotected or 0-RTT-protected <spanx style="verb">ACK</spanx> frames
only during the initial handshake and while they have insufficient information
from 1-RTT-protected <spanx style="verb">ACK</spanx> frames.  Once sufficient information has been
obtained from protected messages, information obtained from less reliable
sources can be discarded.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="windowupdate-frames" title="WINDOW_UPDATE Frames">

<t><spanx style="verb">WINDOW_UPDATE</spanx> frames MUST NOT be sent unprotected.</t>

<t>Though data is exchanged on stream 1, the initial flow control window is is
sufficiently large to allow the TLS handshake to complete.  This limits the
maximum size of the TLS handshake and would prevent a server or client from
using an abnormally large certificate chain.</t>

<t>Stream 1 is exempt from the connection-level flow control window.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="denial-of-service-with-unprotected-packets" title="Denial of Service with Unprotected Packets">

<t>Accepting unprotected - specifically unauthenticated - packets presents a denial
of service risk to endpoints.  An attacker that is able to inject unprotected
packets can cause a recipient to drop even protected packets with a matching
sequence number.  The spurious packet shadows the genuine packet, causing the
genuine packet to be ignored as redundant.</t>

<t>Once the TLS handshake is complete, both peers MUST ignore unprotected packets.
The handshake is complete when the server receives a client’s Finished message
and when a client receives an acknowledgement that their Finished message was
received.  From that point onward, unprotected messages can be safely dropped.
Note that the client could retransmit its Finished message to the server, so the
server cannot reject such a message.</t>

<t>Since only TLS handshake packets and acknowledgments are sent in the clear, an
attacker is able to force implementations to rely on retransmission for packets
that are lost or shadowed.  Thus, an attacker that intends to deny service to an
endpoint has to drop or shadow protected packets in order to ensure that their
victim continues to accept unprotected packets.  The ability to shadow packets
means that an attacker does not need to be on path.</t>

<t><list style="hanging">
  <t hangText='ISSUE:'>
  This would not be an issue if QUIC had a randomized starting sequence number.
If we choose to randomize, we fix this problem and reduce the denial of
service exposure to on-path attackers.  The only possible problem is in
authenticating the initial value, so that peers can be sure that they haven’t
missed an initial message.</t>
</list></t>

<t>In addition to denying endpoints messages, an attacker to generate packets that
cause no state change in a recipient.  See <xref target="useless"/> for a discussion of these
risks.</t>

<t>To avoid receiving TLS packets that contain no useful data, a TLS implementation
MUST reject empty TLS handshake records and any record that is not permitted by
the TLS state machine.  Any TLS application data or alerts - other than a single
end_of_early_data at the appropriate time - that is received prior to the end of
the handshake MUST be treated as a fatal error.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="using-early-data" title="Use of 0-RTT Keys">

<t>If 0-RTT keys are available, the lack of replay protection means that
restrictions on their use are necessary to avoid replay attacks on the protocol.</t>

<t>A client MUST only use 0-RTT keys to protect data that is idempotent.  A client
MAY wish to apply additional restrictions on what data it sends prior to the
completion of the TLS handshake.  A client otherwise treats 0-RTT keys as
equivalent to 1-RTT keys.</t>

<t>A client that receives an indication that its 0-RTT data has been accepted by a
server can send 0-RTT data until it receives all of the server’s handshake
messages.  A client SHOULD stop sending 0-RTT data if it receives an indication
that 0-RTT data has been rejected.  In addition to a ServerHello without an
early_data extension, an unprotected handshake message with a KEY_PHASE bit set
to 0 indicates that 0-RTT data has been rejected.</t>

<t>A client SHOULD send its end_of_early_data alert only after it has received all
of the server’s handshake messages.  Alternatively phrased, a client is
encouraged to use 0-RTT keys until 1-RTT keys become available.  This prevents
stalling of the connection and allows the client to send continuously.</t>

<t>A server MUST NOT use 0-RTT keys to protect anything other than TLS handshake
messages.  Servers therefore treat packets protected with 0-RTT keys as
equivalent to unprotected packets in determining what is permissible to send.  A
server protects handshake messages using the 0-RTT key if it decides to accept a
0-RTT key.  A server MUST still include the early_data extension in its
ServerHello message.</t>

<t>This restriction prevents a server from responding to a request using frames
protected by the 0-RTT keys.  This ensures that all application data from the
server are always protected with keys that have forward secrecy.  However, this
results in head-of-line blocking at the client because server responses cannot
be decrypted until all the server’s handshake messages are received by the
client.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="pre-handshake-protected" title="Protected Frames Prior to Handshake Completion">

<t>Due to reordering and loss, protected packets might be received by an endpoint
before the final handshake messages are received.  If these can be decrypted
successfully, such packets MAY be stored and used once the handshake is
complete.</t>

<t>Unless expressly permitted below, encrypted packets MUST NOT be used prior to
completing the TLS handshake, in particular the receipt of a valid Finished
message and any authentication of the peer.  If packets are processed prior to
completion of the handshake, an attacker might use the willingness of an
implementation to use these packets to mount attacks.</t>

<t>TLS handshake messages are covered by record protection during the handshake,
once key agreement has completed.  This means that protected messages need to be
decrypted to determine if they are TLS handshake messages or not.  Similarly,
<spanx style="verb">ACK</spanx> and <spanx style="verb">WINDOW_UPDATE</spanx> frames might be needed to successfully complete the
TLS handshake.</t>

<t>Any timestamps present in <spanx style="verb">ACK</spanx> frames MUST be ignored rather than causing a
fatal error.  Timestamps on protected frames MAY be saved and used once the TLS
handshake completes successfully.</t>

<t>An endpoint MAY save the last protected <spanx style="verb">WINDOW_UPDATE</spanx> frame it receives for
each stream and apply the values once the TLS handshake completes.  Failing
to do this might result in temporary stalling of affected streams.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="quic-specific-additions-to-the-tls-handshake" title="QUIC-Specific Additions to the TLS Handshake">

<t>QUIC uses the TLS handshake for more than just negotiation of cryptographic
parameters.  The TLS handshake validates protocol version selection, provides
preliminary values for QUIC transport parameters, and allows a server to perform
return routeability checks on clients.</t>

<section anchor="version-negotiation" title="Protocol and Version Negotiation">

<t>The QUIC version negotiation mechanism is used to negotiate the version of QUIC
that is used prior to the completion of the handshake.  However, this packet is
not authenticated, enabling an active attacker to force a version downgrade.</t>

<t>To ensure that a QUIC version downgrade is not forced by an attacker, version
information is copied into the TLS handshake, which provides integrity
protection for the QUIC negotiation.  This does not prevent version downgrade
during the handshake, though it means that such a downgrade causes a handshake
failure.</t>

<t>Protocols that use the QUIC transport MUST use Application Layer Protocol
Negotiation (ALPN) <xref target="RFC7301"/>.  The ALPN identifier for the protocol MUST be
specific to the QUIC version that it operates over.  When constructing a
ClientHello, clients MUST include a list of all the ALPN identifiers that they
support, regardless of whether the QUIC version that they have currently
selected supports that protocol.</t>

<t>Servers SHOULD select an application protocol based solely on the information in
the ClientHello, not using the QUIC version that the client has selected.  If
the protocol that is selected is not supported with the QUIC version that is in
use, the server MAY send a QUIC version negotiation packet to select a
compatible version.</t>

<t>If the server cannot select a combination of ALPN identifier and QUIC version it
MUST abort the connection.  A client MUST abort a connection if the server picks
an incompatible version of QUIC version and ALPN.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="quic_parameters" title="QUIC Extension">

<t>QUIC defines an extension for use with TLS.  That extension defines
transport-related parameters.  This provides integrity protection for these
values.  Including these in the TLS handshake also make the values that a client
sets available to a server one-round trip earlier than parameters that are
carried in QUIC frames.  This document does not define that extension.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="source-address" title="Source Address Validation">

<t>QUIC implementations describe a source address token.  This is an opaque blob
that a server might provide to clients when they first use a given source
address.  The client returns this token in subsequent messages as a return
routeability check.  That is, the client returns this token to prove that it is
able to receive packets at the source address that it claims.  This prevents the
server from being used in packet reflection attacks (see <xref target="reflection"/>).</t>

<t>A source address token is opaque and consumed only by the server.  Therefore it
can be included in the TLS 1.3 pre-shared key identifier for 0-RTT handshakes.
Servers that use 0-RTT are advised to provide new pre-shared key identifiers
after every handshake to avoid linkability of connections by passive observers.
Clients MUST use a new pre-shared key identifier for every connection that they
initiate; if no pre-shared key identifier is available, then resumption is not
possible.</t>

<t>A server that is under load might include a source address token in the cookie
extension of a HelloRetryRequest.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="priming-0-rtt" title="Priming 0-RTT">

<t>QUIC uses TLS without modification.  Therefore, it is possible to use a
pre-shared key that was obtained in a TLS connection over TCP to enable 0-RTT in
QUIC.  Similarly, QUIC can provide a pre-shared key that can be used to enable
0-RTT in TCP.</t>

<t>All the restrictions on the use of 0-RTT apply, with the exception of the ALPN
label, which MUST only change to a label that is explicitly designated as being
compatible.  The client indicates which ALPN label it has chosen by placing that
ALPN label first in the ALPN extension.</t>

<t>The certificate that the server uses MUST be considered valid for both
connections, which will use different protocol stacks and could use different
port numbers.  For instance, HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2 operate over TLS and TCP,
whereas QUIC operates over UDP.</t>

<t>Source address validation is not completely portable between different protocol
stacks.  Even if the source IP address remains constant, the port number is
likely to be different.  Packet reflection attacks are still possible in this
situation, though the set of hosts that can initiate these attacks is greatly
reduced.  A server might choose to avoid source address validation for such a
connection, or allow an increase to the amount of data that it sends toward the
client without source validation.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="security-considerations" title="Security Considerations">

<t>There are likely to be some real clangers here eventually, but the current set
of issues is well captured in the relevant sections of the main text.</t>

<t>Never assume that because it isn’t in the security considerations section it
doesn’t affect security.  Most of this document does.</t>

<section anchor="reflection" title="Packet Reflection Attack Mitigation">

<t>A small ClientHello that results in a large block of handshake messages from a
server can be used in packet reflection attacks to amplify the traffic generated
by an attacker.</t>

<t>Certificate caching <xref target="RFC7924"/> can reduce the size of the server’s handshake
messages significantly.</t>

<t>A client SHOULD also pad <xref target="RFC7685"/> its ClientHello to at least 1024 octets.
A server is less likely to generate a packet reflection attack if the data it
sends is a small multiple of the data it receives.  A server SHOULD use a
HelloRetryRequest if the size of the handshake messages it sends is likely to
exceed the size of the ClientHello.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="useless" title="Peer Denial of Service">

<t>QUIC, TLS and HTTP/2 all contain a messages that have legitimate uses in some
contexts, but that can be abused to cause a peer to expend processing resources
without having any observable impact on the state of the connection.  If
processing is disproportionately large in comparison to the observable effects
on bandwidth or state, then this could allow a malicious peer to exhaust
processing capacity without consequence.</t>

<t>QUIC prohibits the sending of empty <spanx style="verb">STREAM</spanx> frames unless they are marked with
the FIN bit.  This prevents <spanx style="verb">STREAM</spanx> frames from being sent that only waste
effort.</t>

<t>TLS records SHOULD always contain at least one octet of a handshake messages or
alert.  Records containing only padding are permitted during the handshake, but
an excessive number might be used to generate unnecessary work.  Once the TLS
handshake is complete, endpoints SHOULD NOT send TLS application data records
unless it is to hide the length of QUIC records.  QUIC packet protection does
not include any allowance for padding; padded TLS application data records can
be used to mask the length of QUIC frames.</t>

<t>While there are legitimate uses for some redundant packets, implementations
SHOULD track redundant packets and treat excessive volumes of any non-productive
packets as indicative of an attack.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="iana-considerations" title="IANA Considerations">

<t>This document has no IANA actions.  Yet.</t>

</section>


  </middle>

  <back>

    <references title='Normative References'>

<reference anchor="QUIC-RECOVERY" >
  <front>
    <title>QUIC Loss Detection and Congestion Control</title>
    <author initials="J." surname="Iyengar" fullname="Jana Iyengar" role="editor">
      <organization>Google</organization>
    </author>
    <author initials="I." surname="Swett" fullname="Ian Swett" role="editor">
      <organization>Google</organization>
    </author>
    <date />
  </front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="QUIC-TRANSPORT" >
  <front>
    <title>QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport</title>
    <author initials="J." surname="Iyengar" fullname="Jana Iyengar" role="editor">
      <organization>Google</organization>
    </author>
    <author initials="M." surname="Thomson" fullname="Martin Thomson" role="editor">
      <organization>Mozilla</organization>
    </author>
    <date />
  </front>
</reference>




<reference  anchor='RFC7230' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230'>
<front>
<title>Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing</title>
<author initials='R.' surname='Fielding' fullname='R. Fielding' role='editor'><organization /></author>
<author initials='J.' surname='Reschke' fullname='J. Reschke' role='editor'><organization /></author>
<date year='2014' month='June' />
<abstract><t>The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems.  This document provides an overview of HTTP architecture and its associated terminology, defines the &quot;http&quot; and &quot;https&quot; Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes, defines the HTTP/1.1 message syntax and parsing requirements, and describes related security concerns for implementations.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='7230'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC7230'/>
</reference>



<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-tls-tls13'>
<front>
<title>The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3</title>

<author initials='E' surname='Rescorla' fullname='Eric Rescorla'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='October' day='25' year='2016' />

<abstract><t>This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol.  TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery.</t></abstract>

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18' />
<format type='TXT'
        target='http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18.txt' />
</reference>



<reference  anchor='RFC2119' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119'>
<front>
<title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
<author initials='S.' surname='Bradner' fullname='S. Bradner'><organization /></author>
<date year='1997' month='March' />
<abstract><t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification.  These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents.  This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='14'/>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2119'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC2119'/>
</reference>



<reference  anchor='RFC5869' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5869'>
<front>
<title>HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF)</title>
<author initials='H.' surname='Krawczyk' fullname='H. Krawczyk'><organization /></author>
<author initials='P.' surname='Eronen' fullname='P. Eronen'><organization /></author>
<date year='2010' month='May' />
<abstract><t>This document specifies a simple Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC)-based key derivation function (HKDF), which can be used as a building block in various protocols and applications.  The key derivation function (KDF) is intended to support a wide range of applications and requirements, and is conservative in its use of cryptographic hash functions.  This document is not an Internet  Standards Track specification; it is published for informational  purposes.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='5869'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC5869'/>
</reference>



<reference  anchor='RFC2104' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104'>
<front>
<title>HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication</title>
<author initials='H.' surname='Krawczyk' fullname='H. Krawczyk'><organization /></author>
<author initials='M.' surname='Bellare' fullname='M. Bellare'><organization /></author>
<author initials='R.' surname='Canetti' fullname='R. Canetti'><organization /></author>
<date year='1997' month='February' />
<abstract><t>This document describes HMAC, a mechanism for message authentication using cryptographic hash functions. HMAC can be used with any iterative cryptographic hash function, e.g., MD5, SHA-1, in combination with a secret shared key.  The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the properties of the underlying hash function.  This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2104'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC2104'/>
</reference>



<reference  anchor='RFC5116' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116'>
<front>
<title>An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated Encryption</title>
<author initials='D.' surname='McGrew' fullname='D. McGrew'><organization /></author>
<date year='2008' month='January' />
<abstract><t>This document defines algorithms for Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD), and defines a uniform interface and a registry for such algorithms.  The interface and registry can be used as an application-independent set of cryptoalgorithm suites.  This approach provides advantages in efficiency and security, and promotes the reuse of crypto implementations.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='5116'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC5116'/>
</reference>



<reference  anchor='RFC7301' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301'>
<front>
<title>Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation Extension</title>
<author initials='S.' surname='Friedl' fullname='S. Friedl'><organization /></author>
<author initials='A.' surname='Popov' fullname='A. Popov'><organization /></author>
<author initials='A.' surname='Langley' fullname='A. Langley'><organization /></author>
<author initials='E.' surname='Stephan' fullname='E. Stephan'><organization /></author>
<date year='2014' month='July' />
<abstract><t>This document describes a Transport Layer Security (TLS) extension for application-layer protocol negotiation within the TLS handshake. For instances in which multiple application protocols are supported on the same TCP or UDP port, this extension allows the application layer to negotiate which protocol will be used within the TLS connection.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='7301'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC7301'/>
</reference>



<reference  anchor='RFC7685' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7685'>
<front>
<title>A Transport Layer Security (TLS) ClientHello Padding Extension</title>
<author initials='A.' surname='Langley' fullname='A. Langley'><organization /></author>
<date year='2015' month='October' />
<abstract><t>This memo describes a Transport Layer Security (TLS) extension that can be used to pad ClientHello messages to a desired size.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='7685'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC7685'/>
</reference>




    </references>

    <references title='Informative References'>

<reference anchor="AEBounds" target="http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/~kp/TLS-AEbounds.pdf">
  <front>
    <title>Limits on Authenticated Encryption Use in TLS</title>
    <author initials="A." surname="Luykx">
      <organization></organization>
    </author>
    <author initials="K." surname="Paterson">
      <organization></organization>
    </author>
    <date year="2016" month="March" day="08"/>
  </front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="QUIC-HTTP" >
  <front>
    <title>Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) over QUIC</title>
    <author initials="M." surname="Bishop" fullname="Mike Bishop" role="editor">
      <organization>Microsoft</organization>
    </author>
    <date />
  </front>
</reference>




<reference  anchor='RFC7540' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540'>
<front>
<title>Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)</title>
<author initials='M.' surname='Belshe' fullname='M. Belshe'><organization /></author>
<author initials='R.' surname='Peon' fullname='R. Peon'><organization /></author>
<author initials='M.' surname='Thomson' fullname='M. Thomson' role='editor'><organization /></author>
<date year='2015' month='May' />
<abstract><t>This specification describes an optimized expression of the semantics of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), referred to as HTTP version 2 (HTTP/2).  HTTP/2 enables a more efficient use of network resources and a reduced perception of latency by introducing header field compression and allowing multiple concurrent exchanges on the same connection.  It also introduces unsolicited push of representations from servers to clients.</t><t>This specification is an alternative to, but does not obsolete, the HTTP/1.1 message syntax.  HTTP's existing semantics remain unchanged.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='7540'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC7540'/>
</reference>



<reference  anchor='RFC0793' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793'>
<front>
<title>Transmission Control Protocol</title>
<author initials='J.' surname='Postel' fullname='J. Postel'><organization /></author>
<date year='1981' month='September' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='STD' value='7'/>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='793'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC0793'/>
</reference>



<reference  anchor='RFC7924' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7924'>
<front>
<title>Transport Layer Security (TLS) Cached Information Extension</title>
<author initials='S.' surname='Santesson' fullname='S. Santesson'><organization /></author>
<author initials='H.' surname='Tschofenig' fullname='H. Tschofenig'><organization /></author>
<date year='2016' month='July' />
<abstract><t>Transport Layer Security (TLS) handshakes often include fairly static information, such as the server certificate and a list of trusted certification authorities (CAs).  This information can be of considerable size, particularly if the server certificate is bundled with a complete certificate chain (i.e., the certificates of intermediate CAs up to the root CA).</t><t>This document defines an extension that allows a TLS client to inform a server of cached information, thereby enabling the server to omit already available information.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='7924'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC7924'/>
</reference>




    </references>


<section anchor="contributors" title="Contributors">

<t>Ryan Hamilton was originally an author of this specification.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="acknowledgments" title="Acknowledgments">

<t>This document has benefited from input from Christian Huitema, Jana Iyengar,
Adam Langley, Roberto Peon, Eric Rescorla, Ian Swett, and many others.</t>

</section>


  </back>
</rfc>

