IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Short header reserved bits: make available for unilateral experimentation (#2022)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 21 November 2018 02:09 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 6498A127598 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 18:09:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, 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 zjSwzbTvauJh for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 18:09:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0026124C04 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 18:09:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 18:09:35 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1542766175; bh=kD6aPMwFO3oZ2VrSaNoQurhiYltf5GvYWhAyuEzb7ro=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=IMskpiUn67EalE72miXGQMMaMOOl/3/1Or3Xp8I7NVBrikcRG5uJjH+Nh2CNPUW0M XquPhkmlQyJHFp11I5a6o6mcZuvw2xWmZYbRx21wRHYkM9CUc1HQT0DK7PCx5vOBPN fsv9gkdsqBTI6qj7QoHVRak49JRJpUl30znab3B8=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab8678592a107d7e7bbaa322fb1228b9980743c18f92cf00000001180c805f92a169ce16cbfdb7@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2022/440502306@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2022@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2022@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Short header reserved bits: make available for unilateral experimentation (#2022)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bf4be5f341ee_44e43fef366d45c41131a6"; 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
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/hn8NCVk2vNmti5RRj8ZDuvw3w-g>
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: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 02:09:40 -0000

@mikkelfj 
> However, it is bad to have a negotiable mask size. The header protection should be able to work in a hardware offload environment, or parallel process, that does not know the current connection state, at least beyond version number.

I disagree that having a negotiable mask size is a bad thing.

If you are to build a hardware offloader, you should create it so that different encryption algorithms can be applied for different CIDs.

For example, as you state, the algorithm would be different between different two CIDs if the protocol versions are different between the two. Having a different mask based on negotiation is not at all different (note that you would can install the 1-RTT key and the mask to the offloader at the same moment).

-- 
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/2022#issuecomment-440502306

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email