Re: [Int-area] Which CRC to use to enhance payload integrity in GUE extensions

G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Mon, 19 March 2018 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D242C12D7FC for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 UZCeaw76aBCV for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.204.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985631275AB for <int-area@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-8e53.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:ec88:e430:e6cb:55b3]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5BE9D1B000FD; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:08:29 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <5AAFEE8D.3070505@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:08:29 +0000
From: G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, int-area@ietf.org
References: <5AAFECF2.8070807@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <5AAFECF2.8070807@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/michOteLHMzPCAkFG33xrDvtz1g>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Which CRC to use to enhance payload integrity in GUE extensions
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:08:32 -0000

I spoke at the Mic today arguing for considering just a CRC-32.

This is the size of CRC that was for a similar purpose used in SCTP is 
32b in iSCSI and SCTP.

CRC-32c was the selected method, and I think this should be considered 
for this ID. The choice of the CRC-32c algorithm is described in RFC 
3309, along with considerations and a code example. The CRC32c algorithm 
was also chosen in iSCSI (see RFC 3385 for some considerations).

Gorry
TSVWG Co-Chair

(I feel free to discuss the merits of different CRC's on the tsvwg list.)