An idea about Flexible Session Protocol
? ?? <jagao@outlook.com> Fri, 30 June 2017 03:12 UTC
Return-Path: <jagao@outlook.com>
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 528BC127F0E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.022
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outlook.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 uelaZQI9xSSy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from APC01-HK2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092255012.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.255.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 277CA126C2F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=SIqDYqhvwDdpzT8imPhmq7RZI+Gh4vQeQPc0h/dzy7c=; b=U00d05eEGvn9NdeGJ4QIKubMIYofiX4WtWYuivWZFT8MYwKU60+E5yi8m8FD+0ZLa4446IorldDX5Vs8UMj8upNPOe+wMXAbQxXO79Z1roJ0GJx1xzqTFN7mY7AQSKIxCE8SLnOoeuea8LL8EtJpWmBdBHMRLaD+simM3hOWw+AmMekzCpfoFi7218fD9l5gNw5MZSMK9SKzFjB1Uh0LznViPOl6aEMlsxOwNxp0iyo3RXu/Hamdi2TV272GXmPX3M4p/HmT086IxG/5ezGSewdVSthLhScVnUYv29mLmtFQAMVvLHaMcq+iSjmi/tfeGrg792mX0kDxrO2demEujw==
Received: from SG2APC01FT038.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.250.55) by SG2APC01HT202.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.251.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.1199.9; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 03:12:40 +0000
Received: from SG2PR03MB1470.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.152.250.59) by SG2APC01FT038.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.251.98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1199.9 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 03:12:39 +0000
Received: from SG2PR03MB1470.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2c3b:f354:dc7e:5831]) by SG2PR03MB1470.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2c3b:f354:dc7e:5831%14]) with mapi id 15.01.1240.006; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 03:12:39 +0000
From: ? ?? <jagao@outlook.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: An idea about Flexible Session Protocol
Thread-Topic: An idea about Flexible Session Protocol
Thread-Index: AdLxTdEyd88kgUToQge4NpzjkzoFIw==
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 03:12:39 +0000
Message-ID: <SG2PR03MB1470EB0E0BA239DA1E21B9ADBED30@SG2PR03MB1470.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=outlook.com;
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:66BD9E79361887FD9D208A9DD0ADFCBDF03A2BFE0EC2C3F7E3167A45E578E980; UpperCasedChecksum:E5943929B78BE8EE523610B515A2C64CBD292A4261D782991DFD38D62ABD13C1; SizeAsReceived:7038; Count:42
x-tmn: [fWeeSC+MFMqZAmAUGnOc/BfCXWtHckkY]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SG2APC01HT202; 7:kvWzVupnyJP/C8hYKQ1ChOiNUw36nkGhq94etVsrPxf84BT1yHWkkOPN4RCA+0V+3MTSIJgKnyhid4E/hV+QIvof/F9BDZftceCbaD2DImH/KwTv0l83WhNwpqJyPId9CnfBK9MVWXgdQUe0mkF76I9EkzR2lGtb8ar9TUCEauuElkPJoMn6M5s308NIvIwPHw1cPLdiHx3tJvhf3sQh74bCxyTnFHpHBf+766jKpKVYBamSqxQ//780PbcbqDBV7sUL9RFoLFuGssFmi/mc/aFazCD4gxJoKjJEsIkMbGB40ya7DlUz/WqpGuEwfJleCzeWlSN+yep6eFjMsWiNYEFY/yqQoen+yGOPRpQW25DDrQQXNt1jhxz7du0mFq4L1Vdv8yGeD4ZhANt38Tx2CrQErll59qOQilW6DmjyWlSUHMmvDVQ3DvgwIFDfgFHrLQ/9paN7GoWGHxry22QXY3drfov/ZEDj4suD3NosteFDlgXfzaOJkoNVhfel82k1hxMtquaNaZLRsd+W59PjUfjXi2UC/u2OsEAu8QhNURsGjhLQY0nKl2wreiD4FBk4WnAFNp+F5ueBEAEZsHenkiB/XBYzkbCn9evM/1JIvmlBJk9Gh/xsz1zQ9fAaj1F727JCekuHwpXKP81UF/n5VPQhSBOFKoD6ZR038e00qJdzg2yrp6YMO8GvH/y+I2Qrbg/QBv73NPBIkD7ppt3jGDGHNo2jgUvbgyipTYccHeQdXcaiZszmT3lqEgDWHaV+QB5nFdc/PsmeNF39DdvMlw==
x-incomingheadercount: 42
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070007)(98901004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:SG2APC01HT202; H:SG2PR03MB1470.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0f191885-b131-464d-8214-08d4bf65ddcd
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300095)(22001)(300000502095)(300135100095)(300000503095)(300135400095)(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031324274)(2017031323274)(2017031322274)(1601125374)(1603101448)(1701031045)(300000504095)(300135200095)(300000505095)(300135600095)(300000506095)(300135500095); SRVR:SG2APC01HT202;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SG2APC01HT202:
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(444000031); SRVR:SG2APC01HT202; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:SG2APC01HT202;
x-forefront-prvs: 0354B4BED2
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Jun 2017 03:12:39.6011 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SG2APC01HT202
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uKPqEDoZ2LsgrswIqzMOR8ebHKw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 03:12:44 -0000
Hello, I have an idea about Flexible Session Protocol, and wrote a preliminary concept implementation available at https://github.com/jaglee/FSP Abstract: FSP is a connection-oriented transport layer protocol that provides mobility, multihoming and multipath support by introducing the concept of 'upper layer thread ID', which was firstly suggested in [Gao2002] <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/u-6i-6f-Etuvh80-SUuRbSCDTwg> Authencity of an FSP packet is usually crytographically protected by some algorithm that requires a shared secret key. The upper layer thread ID is assigned roughly the same semantics as the Security Parameter Index (SPI) in MOBIKE [RFC4555] to index the secret key. The secret key is assumed to be installed by the upper layer application. FSP facilitates such secret key installation by introducing the concept of 'transmit transaction', which makes it flexible for the application layer protocols to adopt wide range of key establishment algorithm. I wonder if it could resolve some concerns in research. Best Regards, Jason Gao