Comparing ALPS and Half-RTT Data
draft-davidben-tls-alps-half-rtt-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author David Benjamin 
Last updated 2020-12-03
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text html xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
TLS                                                          D. Benjamin
Internet-Draft                                                Google LLC
Intended status: Informational                           3 December 2020
Expires: 6 June 2021

                    Comparing ALPS and Half-RTT Data
                  draft-davidben-tls-alps-half-rtt-00

Abstract

   This document compares the Application Layer Protocols Settings
   extension with the half-RTT feature in TLS 1.3.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   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
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 June 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Benjamin                   Expires 6 June 2021                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      Comparing ALPS and Half-RTT Data       December 2020

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Using Half-RTT Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Half-RTT Delimiter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Non-Integer HTTP Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Early Data and Session Tickets  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.4.  Client Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.5.  TLS Terminators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.6.  TCP Flow Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Using ALPS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  Half-RTT Delimiter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  Non-Integer HTTP Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  Early Data and Session Tickets  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Client Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.5.  TLS Terminators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.6.  TCP Flow Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   An application-layer protocol often starts with both parties
   negotiating parameters under which the protocol operates; for
   instance, HTTP/2 [RFC7540] and HTTP/3 [I-D.ietf-quic-http] use a
   SETTINGS frame to exchange the list of protocol parameters supported
   by each endpoint.  This can achieved by waiting for TLS handshake
   [RFC8446] to complete and then performing the application-layer
   handshake within the application protocol itself.

   This approach, however, means application protocols must wait for a
   secondary negotiation to complete, often incurring network round-
   trip.  HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 mitigate this with a best-effort negotiation
   scheme: clients do not wait for server SETTINGS before sending a
   request.  But then, by the time the client applies the setting, it
   has already sent the first request based on the default values.  This
   limits the kinds of extensions possible.  For example, the SETTINGS
   frame cannot support negotiate header compression [QUIC-3622] or a
   different static table [HTTP2-788] without changing the protocol to
   disable compression by default and switch partway through.

   Protocol selection is another example of application-level
   negotiation with these trade-offs.  The Application Layer Protocol
   Negotiation (ALPN) extension [RFC7301] adds protocol selection into
   the TLS handshake.  ALPN is instead consistently ordered before all

Benjamin                   Expires 6 June 2021                  [Page 2]
Show full document text