Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Spin per peer (#1982)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Wed, 28 November 2018 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA081130F70 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 02:45:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.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 RiIgAvmJ53NV for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 02:45:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-6.smtp.github.com (out-6.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39F1B130F6F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 02:45:43 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 02:45:41 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1543401941; bh=6lnI3OHYEb29EBfuSbhx1dpG0oeycqHc+DeVDA6DT9g=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=BU+djjN1yPJBx2QrPK0VZ5T9IhWSgVVk2aSptOj/9QnGZI4wffT8W0Im5rT/ea0GU ToHr0WJuTzajGEGaE+xJAywdWaNXt+ITNYLPfQKpkkDmqQOaNFrODm/8mCknpW5h4d I8YH+1W1xrdr0oxFlks8Xkv78FclpMBW/e5aRKHo=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba43b0641200cf6ee2e39a9315d3dc1dffaf9046292cf00000001181633d592a169ce169265bd@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1982/review/179229434@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1982@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1982@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Spin per peer (#1982)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bfe71d55244b_413a3f8beb6d45b42271f4"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/67jnPCnhkh_SqyrU95eNivkg8p0>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:45:45 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> +
+The selection process SHOULD be designed such that
+on average the spin bit is disabled for at least one eighth of network paths.
+The selection process SHOULD be externally unpredictable but consistent for
+any given combination of source and destination address/port. For instance,
+the implementation might have a static key which it uses to key a pseudorandom
+function over these values and use the output to determine whether to
+send the spin bit. The selection process performed at the beginning
+of the connection SHOULD be applied for all paths used by the connection.
+
+Note that where multiple connections use the same path,
+the use of the spin bit MAY be coordinated by endpoints,
+recognizing that this might not be possible in many cases.
+
+When the spin bit is disabled, endpoints MAY set the spin bit to any value,
+and MUST accept any incoming value.
 

I understand that perspective, but I'm wondering if this is a detail that now needs to be brought ot the list to decide, since I think there are people who specifically want to randomize it?  What do you think @martinthomson ?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1982#discussion_r237030144