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

ekr <notifications@github.com> Sun, 25 November 2018 20:31 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 A84BE1274D0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:31:49 -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 E4IFLAACXZ2H for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:31:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92F8F126C7E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:31:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:31:46 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1543177906; bh=6BAipr6PejG+7JIi8kgqS0k9bOWA4WZgWy0/UBCDWFw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=hgZcuoR807F3m+aTvG2+x3gTWLn789Ncm72dIa+m7trbWI4OyUnMssavjdaM0qRIU 52xypShHuE8yqZhtRNchPJ4NqgJlsD1ouvO/udOzV0GlHvL8x5stOGmcuXBjSKKgTv G7xlClp3OXAxO2AwTGDVT3ApZvSxzR+5+UvjOIOE=
From: ekr <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab5282959f8349228c54c8115e44a6233ba6d735ce92cf000000011812c8b292a169ce169265bd@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/178096024@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_5bfb06b259c63_297b3f7f254d45c060130"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ekr
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/K61GzqKE_OtGyI1psKCdjx5TcuM>
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:31:50 -0000

ekr commented on this pull request.



> -
-When the spin bit is disabled, endpoints SHOULD set the spin bit value to zero,
-regardless of the values received from their peer. Addendums or revisions to
+fraction of connections.
+
+The selection process SHOULD be designed such that
+on average the spin bit is disabled for at least one eighth of network paths.
+The random choice SHOULD be dependent
+on the source and destination addresses of the path,
+so that the spin bit is consistently enabled or
+disabled for repeated use of the same path.
+
+When the spin bit is disabled, endpoints SHOULD set the spin bit value to
+a constant value randomly chosen to be 0 or 1,
+regardless of the values received from their peer.  Alternatively, endpoints MAY
+change this value when changing connection ID.  Addendums or revisions to

Well, as I said, I would prefer not specifying anything. As far as I can tell, there's no valid interop reason to do so. What I'm trying to avoid is having a characteristic "I am not doing spin bit" behavior that people anchor on, and "this is always 1" is totally that. Random is at least somewhat better.

As far as needing a PRNG, there's plenty of randomness floating around in packet processing. Specifically, because the PNE mask generation function generates 128 bits at a time.








-- 
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_r236088907