Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 04 July 2018 03:49 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E73130EB1; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 20:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 4TNU4fVPKDph; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 20:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x243.google.com (mail-pf0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::243]) (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 BEC8B130EBD; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 20:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x243.google.com with SMTP id a11-v6so1975391pff.8; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 20:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OAIkxktwAP9hAbXbf5gMkwOJHzFvAxR4gGHsgSUH7DA=; b=fGEbAl1y7bN9WhKGPYtOd6vHM/jKOX6a5k62iwn+f2Z4Mtz94grbKGqPUkXhK+6QLJ 9b4vwrQa5KWjTQKtcPgkPn1fGQuJudY7gr2xr57yZHEV/QGKUleGLUZEUHf4ZshUpHSK gfOleCb4ZyIehml5OfQMpkI4nWV9e+PdXlkji6X9FHQJFd4QQm7NThbLlpFohr4evcUE teGRCYHUww7cW7j/1pvtZqtlKMPn4Kgi9IFboOxRhJnIpj4LBfNkXu1/Ikt5K7ooCs5H BzKi0xU1ocYQtr8YMKcFJ+GroTHkCKlhaNjDXXMrlw33ukstXnVHZ0tRA4nZX1fDrd4j 0gIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OAIkxktwAP9hAbXbf5gMkwOJHzFvAxR4gGHsgSUH7DA=; b=cueQZDDQY3MkOS6X6JPZJN1qkYg7T6cd7T6l1lbqeW/rQU85a4IFNpeSdArXGDWZR/ Mg8J3v/9BhC8/3IiCnriWd8u/GEQwJoGqVrDzxF3rL9pe+3cVLRUj0sJXZnbemmrFLGy ZeXVKYaWFsmg/hiRZqhgSbCdmUbWqrYGYWBwcI9J9TOpjqcyw3RCFd5P7RkXH0fLCRpy rFkoyLdnAnjqX7twRAADf0gAoYXPBjzd9QYDOfD8nwJlpwdZuljU9tv2N/5znAtAODoA 9HGZn7gks7qqeZ3BnaECsBVJe2S65yT341jRicvs5/vhObotVxCpNawcwUeKvuqo468j Woww==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2WC85q0U99QpzK5t2aXRUeHD6eTD6CBUdbvAmoNV7702UJKv13 e+RsqGeyqoMuq54iflQb2P7aGg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdT6Z9M+yKIUv1nRQfa09RMIe9aD2iIdVBiL0FZRVtFlAwt/fpSOVYiQk5/z6YKww0ovNA6uQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:a1a:: with SMTP id 26-v6mr358472pgk.221.1530676159893; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 20:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.38] ([118.148.121.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x11-v6sm4608213pge.15.2018.07.03.20.49.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Jul 2018 20:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-08: (with COMMENT)
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
References: <153065994532.5103.6344190871409427105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6a9387bb-e004-a3c4-88ed-c990d723aa6b@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 15:49:18 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <153065994532.5103.6344190871409427105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/1LWjg94CGIqBEZUkWkk7mkmYPf4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 03:49:24 -0000

On 04/07/2018 11:19, Eric Rescorla wrote:
...
> S 5.1.
>>      field as defined in the IPv6 Flow Label specification [RFC6437].
>>      Forwarding nodes such as routers and load distributors MUST NOT
>>      depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly distributed.  It is
>>      RECOMMENDED that source hosts support the flow label by setting the
>>      Flow Label field for all packets of a given flow to the same value
>>      chosen from an approximation to a discrete uniform distribution.
> 
> Is there a reason you are using "approximation" here?
> 

RFC6437 says:

   In statistics, a discrete uniform distribution is defined as a
   probability distribution in which each value in a given range of
   equally spaced values (such as a sequence of integers) is equally
   likely to be chosen as the next value.  The values in such a
   distribution exhibit both variability and unguessability.  Thus, as
   specified in Section 3, an approximation to a discrete uniform
   distribution is preferable as the source of flow label values.
   Intentionally, there are no precise mathematical requirements placed
   on the distribution or the method used to achieve such a
   distribution.

[and in Section 3]

   It is therefore RECOMMENDED
   that source hosts support the flow label by setting the flow label
   field for all packets of a given flow to the same value chosen from
   an approximation to a discrete uniform distribution.  Both stateful
   and stateless methods of assigning a value could be used, but it is
   outside the scope of this specification to mandate an algorithm.

The reason for saying "approximate" is basically that at least one
mathematician (my colleague Prof. Cristian Calude) pointed out that
(apart from quantum processes) there is no way to generate a truly
random distribution. So you can regard it as mathematical pedantry;
I have no strong feelings whether that's useful in the present draft.

   Brian