Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform should be negotiated (#1296)
janaiyengar <notifications@github.com> Sun, 10 June 2018 17:26 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 F056F130EB5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 10:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 8LPFJ1b0l6nB for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 10:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
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 0E33D130EA5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 10:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 10:26:14 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1528651574; bh=hM1mWk/VOisdE6iSwF05FUcln8C5Op31t0A0EpZYNsE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=1xdls12R0ZGesiafQjaY1DN+pohH2dfwUiLxuY7YHYvsm3dW8iIzEMDO9CWphYtgx fekQVnBdp/CmOdD50Z8moMWgxwPviiBWyxQOepMDS0C47JJR2PVEKofVtTsjnbwVLN geIQuZTDLAYSwEbbtEyiN6xXbvgsXGwIRUUNHN/s=
From: janaiyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab9eaed3338ca02f5cab47a2ffd86f105d224e822692cf000000011735213592a169ce12c973b1@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1296/396066372@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1296@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1296@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform should be negotiated (#1296)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b1d5f36109c_2dd22b236885af502676ec"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/K_exo2sxh3re3zR-AGt_4IyqdIc>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 10 Jun 2018 17:26:18 -0000
IPsec isn't exactly suffering problems that come with being wildly successful. PNE solves at least two problems; ossification is just one of them, linkage across connection migration is the other one. On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 11:38 PM borisPis <notifications@github.com> wrote: > From another hardware vendor's perspective. It is not only additional > complexity or performance loss. QUIC will be the only protocol to require a > second pass over encrypted data. It means that this hardware circuitry must > be implemented exclusively for QUIC, and it is unlikely to be reused. > > IPsec has plaintext sequence numbers, and IPsec crypto offload in the data > path increases performance by about 5x. Is there any indication of IPsec > sequence numbers being ossified? I would assume that QUIC sequence numbers > wouldn't be any different. > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1296#issuecomment-396024817>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKjg1N2sQqW6b6EEKchUhCWVsolNLR1Xks5t7L7kgaJpZM4TY4b4> > . > -- 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/1296#issuecomment-396066372
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform … Praveen Balasubramanian
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform … janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform … borisPis
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform shou… Praveen Balasubramanian
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform … Praveen Balasubramanian
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform … janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform … MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform … Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform … bobdug
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform … Praveen Balasubramanian
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform … Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform … ianswett