Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify Actions on nonzero Reserved Bits (#2280)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Thu, 10 January 2019 11:49 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 A389A130DDA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 03:49:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.553 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_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 b3JSZFbBrovp for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 03:49:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A510A130DEF for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 03:49:48 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 03:49:47 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1547120987; bh=EzEkLqMACrB6DwcFRcdjeX0m4AsCxny26pzup8PRzb4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=q8ZLoR53IkQ5D3vfsXXGc3bywtOtzXMZ3iJvFnlN+O+V1qn2kWJzdnVk8npmjWKRz TgjKTBB9ADsCgpKVTRQT6QPkr44+2d5ex36iY+L974mif6lpU1BeypAOSiVdFh9oPH Lm35OyLfEx3UZNbj8sdGIMoZ80yAdnXY4hhAj56s=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abd1b8f9cfb9cce1e4877a27439eb0e5321e565a3d92cf00000001184ef35b92a169ce178a377a@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2280/c453069012@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2280@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2280@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify Actions on nonzero Reserved Bits (#2280)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c37315b3177a_450b3ffde94d45b4120d7"; 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/KCxlqz5N-tEbW8ZxvmwHY5zYBEg>
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 11:49:50 -0000

@kazuho Given these are within the encrypted envelope, if one side thinks they mean something and the other doesn't or vice versa, there are sure to be problems, so any usage would have to be negotiated as you say.

@marten-seemann I couldn't find that in #2022.  My reading of that discussion was header protection is better than just doing packet number encryption.

I don't have a strong opinion here, but I'm also not seeing much reason to specify what the values need to be and saying they can be anything seems simpler.  Saying they have to be 0 invites people to short-cut the full decryption and drop packets that have other values immediately.  To be clear, I probably would have done that if I hadn't read this issue.

-- 
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/2280#issuecomment-453069012