IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] [Sframe] Dispatch of SFrame

Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com> Wed, 17 June 2020 02:25 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilvv@google.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C303A0DAD for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 19:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UVDFYuQOzG4s for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 19:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A83D73A0DAB for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 19:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id 9so923297ljc.8 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 19:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FpEgH1KdVEUzaT7Hi2H9ahSPHNlWHQckYRKSl3HF9iI=; b=hRWVi7XdsSMZHjWRqe3DrmMpjwhKA3aUiZ0fB6sdJ7DcLnPaRSKghssesm4LprpKCJ 7d2zwVXrhuvS2RGpy3nfOSTBxiftP7T9VjIQ2n8zzTGkUzs/c/ip8Ua2iYSH07ftTdPx 9uIl598IdIF43ENtGelmH4dODrv4wg5IlDZVZ+8JhDXXqaEd+9kAuI5BbhFqu7qjpuB1 wzdYgb2O/ONCr/hb0wz/q3iO/5UxRhEX1YIf3LtU/lAELHNoAfCx9l34ILEkMh7p1Ffs IkZTc+L+Skz1/ZnSIFZWdRxEBgUMWv1dfWLw6PIOOQkTHp00vZ3a/FVLLqv3DWpegtIh XYMg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FpEgH1KdVEUzaT7Hi2H9ahSPHNlWHQckYRKSl3HF9iI=; b=NXyoABzlaf3ph0sDpUsWHe8HMuO2WJ5TYs8cix9iuBddYhvYqfgi+e+CN8IrwWgeap ZnChlfprkqE5QrM/IRHeaJlX/2FnsNaJ+UKCynDWkR9MX9ux9zEerY9WHfG6xb/P2zIr Q9piqAtl6CePA2+23j/LWHiHymNWLAW+M3i/Q//dIM5JOE4zBI5b4VcATEcnZ1D0RC6d DYBCtDKC3Kgr7YaXZWJhrSJOYvjM/fcaxQFbyYgZxIG+dh6Ub7w6SVL+OENgtxhIGak4 pPwulzjdBUYyXCsUJ9pPDT0M1gJ2mEfcE0jEWRDVKTEUmqovliqdeO+aLFtTZ9JXVffC 7ODg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530FVGGwGVjPARsfrtWE0S1un4xJfiElT0sa0uW4J5nZO2/0ty8y HzcrTcimeQcACma3eK63iNdzfF9k+gZHfvEVNHadpw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzuPiQUKYF5j0pHBw/Co5qN04Gz0ZSi+91kUy6cZwxwYWYhq515rbWlbjvuPPgoa2FLcHer1bd6AesSLbsmtc8=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b818:: with SMTP id u24mr2571692ljo.94.1592360728627; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 19:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABcZeBOWU8G1p7zKYmUh+13+ZDgpuzgN737aJTNOfsdFTbKQxQ@mail.gmail.com> <355B2449-D396-4528-896B-CA2ED630ED35@gmail.com> <CABcZeBOLzTsKfv6WcPRLkFVc2RxJ3CTmjyLZf9pmESugsG=vag@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOLzTsKfv6WcPRLkFVc2RxJ3CTmjyLZf9pmESugsG=vag@mail.gmail.com>
From: Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 22:25:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAZdMadu1HBRWLjZtZ5sj4zYXffmP9xNjLoZAVqq5Otk4PB-Og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, DISPATCH list <dispatch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000096067905a83e5f7a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/uYOjrBTSQu89HIiXAmDFNS6jd84>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] [Sframe] Dispatch of SFrame
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 02:25:32 -0000

I imagine that for high-bitrate traffic, the difference between encrypting
every packet and encrypting an entire frame at once is substantial enough
to make using asymmetric crypto feasible in practice.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:53 AM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 7:27 AM Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail..com
> <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 16, 2020, at 6:53 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, I understand that the wire encoding supports signatures, but in
>> the discussions I've had (including with Emac) I don't think that people
>> believe that the latency/bandwidth/computation tradeoff is viable.
>>
>> [BA] Depends on the scenario.  We are in a pandemic where conferences are
>> being used for all kinds of things that we haven’t seen before. For
>> example, consider a situation in which participants are answering a binding
>> poll and the responses (voice or data) need to be authenticated. SFrame can
>> handle that. PERC cannot.
>
>
> I don't really think framing this as "PERC vs. SFrame" is that helpful,
> but there's no in principle reason PERC couldn't have signatures, though of
> course one would need to define new algorithms.
>
> -Ekr
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email