[quicwg/base-drafts] 89ac29: Strike confusing paragraph

Martin Thomson <noreply@github.com> Wed, 05 August 2020 05:09 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 55B4A3A0B38 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 22:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 g0tAtGJ_1f_k for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 22:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08B703A0B23 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 22:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-39b4a70.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-39b4a70.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D97FE1DE6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 22:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1596604181; bh=HYNShTO9QOyAZxKHVMLF/0pEdeZUlEiH8+TNrdsXB8c=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=rYE79DkHtUYN6psu2HJiJsZNfAgTFv51/mi1jfIg3JN+i2jSFytQqVOPS0lUHNBlY LQW67zlk1U+gxYkXOxSa+1R3dvjzv74elevWSeHSW9NXBpWhh/3DOs4I51T/PDX8cl ML0DqIWeiaoZ405XArZZ0+iDQWOknxBpk6WKjI0I=
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 22:09:41 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <noreply@github.com>
To: quic-issues@ietf.org
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/push/refs/heads/on-path-is-stronger/000000-89ac29@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] 89ac29: Strike confusing paragraph
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/OA2i16ArVeXYsp835VZdLLD7GlE>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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, 05 Aug 2020 05:09:43 -0000

  Branch: refs/heads/on-path-is-stronger
  Home:   https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts
  Commit: 89ac29735a54173093bcafa968f423aeeb45a6fc
      https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/commit/89ac29735a54173093bcafa968f423aeeb45a6fc
  Author: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
  Date:   2020-08-05 (Wed, 05 Aug 2020)

  Changed paths:
    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md

  Log Message:
  -----------
  Strike confusing paragraph

This text could be read to imply that an off-path attacker is more
capable than an on-path attacker, which is rarely true.  What it was
meant to point out was that it is easier to move traffic onto a path
that you are on.  What it fails to acknowledge is that it is also easier
to move traffic *off* a path that you are on.

In other words, the treatment of this in 21.12 is more thorough and we
don't need to talk about limitations.

Mike suggested that there is some duplication between this attack and
the more comprehensive analysis in 21.12.  That is true, but these serve
different purposes.  This is to describe attacks and the normative
requirements on endpoints necessary to avoid them.  The other section is
a thorough and hollistic analysis.  I couldn't see any truly
straightforward changes.  That doesn't mean that we won't find a way to
clean this up, or that it would be undesirable to have fewer words, but
I've not the time for that right now.

Closes #3841.