IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Actions to take when Reserved Bits are not Zero (#2329)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Thu, 10 January 2019 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 74531131265 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 13:29:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 5_ZZz8vyNkwo for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 13:29:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o8.sgmail.github.com (o8.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.199]) (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 961C0124B0C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 13:29:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=7vvblb7Nr6If/kSDAFS/s0Zu96M=; b=ok8A/Rvd2M9zm3Yb D2qWHFZFOgDRVF8cV4c4rhDvmtm0BoDld6dQqRcRfcyX39AZDD2JLBGh8fwEjf8/ Be+N3ETo3Y6jKTu/PBKFvi7ZeZ4igqfFTiRDsM1AX1/KAegevdDCm60+ZuX8jAyI aEjjrNwMwLZ5/dpyuFDFQk6OvKw=
Received: by filter1322p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter1322p1mdw1-15730-5C37B923-25 2019-01-10 21:29:07.703395228 +0000 UTC m=+243923.980191129
Received: from github-lowworker-1ffe0ab.cp1-iad.github.net (unknown [192.30.252.38]) by ismtpd0040p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id bxDQQrUrSr-q9wePYtFwSg for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 21:29:07.767 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from github.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by github-lowworker-1ffe0ab.cp1-iad.github.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C9D3806FA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 13:29:07 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 21:29:07 +0000
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba10ee6029be5d2fe3a0fd582df1e4bb6caedbaf192cf00000001184f7b2392a169ce17b7938d@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2329/453260777@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2329@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2329@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Actions to take when Reserved Bits are not Zero (#2329)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c37b923b7edf_55ea3f8b628d45b417058d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak0R8ePFJaQa6MOi10ne/5N2AJwDA0RMMdij+p u8vnsLWsoTZyXqyc5Idv6xgKpZmAWguoBmiidL/sJs6t2pZv6f6/NPc6gOBTFXZXcILtirVmm33cCN a2RHpvBd1fGm2dCQZeLzVFG2jlOKJaUH5Krm9anXs/Di/kSmmtXlPugGIj15mu9LvZfgNLPDkyHW00 0=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/8D80f93IBzHXSqTte4zKjTVquCs>
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: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 21:29:10 -0000

Testing the bits prior to AEAD-decryption (option 2) is a no-go. While I am not sure if doing that exposes any information (because there is _no_ information carried by the reserved bits), I prefer having a consistent rule on when the results of header (un)protection can be used.

I think that the choice should be either status-quo or require the receiver to ignore the bits, with the slight preference towards the former.

Honestly, I do not see what we get by requiring the receiver to ignore the bits, because they should not be used in any way without negotiation, to avoid endpoints applying different meanings to the bits.

-- 
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/issues/2329#issuecomment-453260777

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email