Fwd: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Wed, 21 April 2021 19:00 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976063A337B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 wcKLio1pOIrG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (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 47C9F3A334E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:9597:19d8:b6c1:cd8b] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:9597:19d8:b6c1:cd8b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BFA9560033C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 22:00:05 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1619031605; bh=bM1xbjWEUfRxt3HAM6lvu0jCmSimAuSuAdTPOh360Yg=; h=From:Subject:References:To:Date; b=ehLLl5YHox2tJXlJaloPZmCu+dezV6kwTEAIjCmUxoUhPozmeKGADzrg3ISKyxpr/ cCDEoSmS4aqqlQPl0yq3iKhQ9MoGXmQhtWatuLincZPD+skKkZB07WnQsQfdhXvK/N +RYJL4TfTFHW9daTbxZKZLQtC4JER5+WXNrZauKk=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F785DB24-D39F-4569-A6E4-FFE8E341FA11"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Subject: Fwd: Quic: the Elephant in the Room
Message-Id: <E15E2665-09AB-4EB3-B65B-BAF54618133E@eggert.org>
References: <8BA5A095-268D-494B-A272-D43B5CA5F7F4@eggert.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 22:00:05 +0300
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-MailScanner-ID: BFA9560033C.A3ED0
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1fLrR3F03FMa_li6XT8OYgsj_T4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:00:33 -0000

Hi,

for context, and to correct some misrepresentations, here is my reply to Michael from the QUIC list.

Thanks,
Lars


Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
> Subject: Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room
> Date: April 21, 2021 at 19:46:57 GMT+3
> To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
> Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>om>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>om>, Matt Joras <matt.joras@gmail.com>om>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>om>, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>om>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2021-4-21, at 19:11, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>> I am a newcomer. I came here against my better judgement as I stated on the IETF list.
> 
> I have emails from you in my IETF mail archive at least as far back as 2006. But I assume you mean that you are a newcomer to the QUIC WG.
> 
>> I immediately had my head chopped off and told to go away by a working group chair in less than 24 hours.
> 
> I don't think you're helping your case by using dramatic phrases.
> 
> To recap: You brought a proposal that had been discussed elsewhere to the QUIC WG list. You got feedback from a number of different participants on your proposal. The discussion veered away from QUIC to other protocols that this WG is not working on. A chair suggested you continue the discussion on a mailing list better suited to your topic.
> 
>> If the number of packets exchanged in the initial handshake of a transport protocol is off topic, I am speechless. My better judgement wasn't that it was off topic, it was that this outcome is the ordinary behavior of insular IETF working groups.
> 
> A number of participants have commented on this already, for example, pointing out that the number of round trips matter much more than the number of packets, and that in their opinion your suggestion would not lead to further substantial enough gains. You then moved the topic of the discussion to why Google (and I assume other companies) are not signing their zones and offered theories as to why that is, which is not a topic of relevance to this WG. Hence the request to discuss it elsewhere.
> 
>> I also got told that signing a zone is tantamount to "boiling the ocean".
> 
> You're misquoting David. He said:
> 
> On 2021-4-20, at 20:20, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not saying that a 3-packet handshake would be bad, I'm saying
>> that it's not worth boiling the ocean to remove 2 packets.
> 
> Nowhere in that sentence or the rest of David's email do I see any mention of signing zones.
> 
>> As IETF chair, do you agree with that? Because if it's true then there are serious issues with DNSSec and we should do something about it. I think it's nonsense, fwiw.
> 
> Again, not a topic for *this* mailing list.
> 
>> Mike, and what exactly are those venues? tia.
> 
> I'd start at DNSOP and ask if there is a more appropriate list.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lars
> 
>